Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:28:01.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Is There No Hermeneutics of Natural Sciences? Some Preliminary Theses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Gyorgy Markus
Gyorgy Markus
Affiliation:
Department of General PhilosophyThe University of Sydney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Contemporary natural sciences succeed remarkably well in ensuring a relatively continuous transmission of their cognitively relevant traditions and in creating a widely shared background consensus among their practitioners – hermeneutical ends seemingly achieved without hermeneutical awareness or explicitly acquired hermeneutical skills.

It is a historically specific – emerging only in the nineteenth century – cultural organization of the Author-Text-Reader relation which endows them with such an ease of hermeneutical achievements: an institutionally fixed form of textual and intertextual practices, normatively posited ways of adequate reception and criticism, etc. The same organization also explains a number of their often-discussed epistemic and cultural characteristics: their depersonalized objectivity, the social closure of their discourse and their reduced cultural significance, the shallow historical depth of their activated traditions, etc.

The cognitive structure and the social function of contemporary natural sciences are intimately interwoven with a set of sui generis cultural relations that are partially fixed in the textual characteristics of their literary objectivations. A comparative hermeneutical analysis of natural sciences as a specifically constituted and institutionalized cultural genre or discourse-type brings into relief those contingent cultural conditions and relations to which some of their fundamental epistemological characteristics are bound, or at least with which they are historically closely associated.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , March 1987 , pp. 5 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, J. S., 1961. “Science and the Visual Arts,” in Seventeenth Century Science and the Arts, ed. Rhys, H. H., Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Apel, K. O., 1983. “Comments on J. Farr, 1983,” Philosophy of Social Sciences 13.Google Scholar
Arendt, H., 1958. The Human Condition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bachelard, G., 1938. La formation de I'esprit scientifique, Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Barnes, B., 1972. “On the Reception of Scientific Beliefs,” in Sociology of Science, ed. Barnes, B., Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Bazerman, C., 1981. “What Written Knowledge Does: Three Examples of Academic Discourse,” Phil. Soc. Sci. 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellone, E., 1980. A World on Paper, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ben-David, J., 1965. “The Scientific Role: The Conditions of Its Establishment in Europe,” Minerva 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenberg, H., 1981. Die Lesbarkeit der Welt, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P., 1975. “The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progress of Reason,” Social Science Information 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadus, R. N., 1971. “The Literature of the Social Sciences,” International Social Science Journal 23.Google Scholar
Bush, D., 1950. Science and English Poetry, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Callon, M., 1980. “Struggles and Negotiations to Define What Is Problematic and What Is Not,” in The Social Process of Scientific Investigation, ed. Knorr, K. D. et al. , Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Cannon, S. F., 1978. Science in Culture: The Early Victorian Period, New York: Dawson.Google Scholar
Collins, H. M., 1974. “The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks,” Science Studies 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. M., 1975. “The Seven Sexes: A Study in the Sociology of a Phenomenon, or the Replication of Experiments in Physics,” Sociology 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. M., 1981. “Son of Seven Sexes: The Social Destruction of a Physical Phenomenon,” Social Studies of Science 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crombie, A. C., 1981. “Philosophical Presuppositions and Shifting Interpretations of Galileo,” in Theory Change, Ancient Axiomatic and Galileo's Methodology, ed. Hintikka, J. and Gruender, D., Dordrecht: Reidel, 1.Google Scholar
Curtius, E., 1948. Europaische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter, Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Diemer, A., ed., 1978. Konzeption und Begriffder Forschung in den Wissenschaften des 19. Jahrhunderts, Meisenheim: Hain.Google Scholar
Dolby, R. G. A., 1971. “Sociology of Knowledge in Natural Sciences,” Sci. Stud. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolby, R. G. A., 1982. “On the Anatomy of Pure Science,” in Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies, ed. Elias, N. et al. , Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Dosch, H. G., 1982. “Geschichtsbewusstsein in der Naturwissenschaft,” in Geschichtsbewusstsein und Rationalität, ed. Rudolph, E. and Stöve, E., Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
Edge, D., 1979. “Quantitative Measures of Communication in Science: A Critical Review,” History of Science 17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisenstein, E. L., 1980. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elkana, Y., 1971. “Newtonianism in the Eighteenth Century,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elkana, Y., 1974. The Discovery of the Conservation of Energy, London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Elkana, Y., 1981. “A Programmatic Attempt at an Anthropology of Knowledge,” in Sciences and Cultures, ed. Mendelsohn, E., and Elkana, Y., Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Farr, J., 1983. “Popper's Hermeneutics,” Phil. Soc. Sci. 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrall, L. A., 1975. “Controversy and Conflict in Science: A Case Study,” Soc. Stud. Sci. 5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fontenelle, B. L. de, 1790. “Préface sur l'utilité des mathématiques et de la physique,” in Oeuvres, Paris: Bastien, 6.Google Scholar
Gadamer, H. G., 1975. Wahrheit und Methode, 4th ed., Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
Gadamer, H. G., 1976. Vernunft im Zeitalter der Wissenschaft, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Gage, J., 1983. “Newton and Painting,” in Common Denominators in Art and Science, ed. Pollock, M., Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N., 1976. “The Transformation of Research Findings into Scientific Knowledge,” Soc. Stud. Sci. 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, N., 1977. “Referencing as Persuasion,” Soc. Stud. Sci. 7.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N., and Mulkay, M., 1980. “Contexts of Scientific Discourse: Social Accounting in Experimental Papers,” in The Social Process of Scientific Investigation, ed. Knorr, K. D. et al. , Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N., and Mulkay, M., 1984. Opening Pandora's Box, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gillispie, C. C., 1959. “The Encyclopedic and Jacobin Philosophy of Science,” in Critical Problems in the History of Science, ed. Clagett, M., Madison: Wisconsin University Press.Google Scholar
Gopnik, M., 1972. Linguistic Structures in Scientific Texts, The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gouk, P. M., 1983. “The Union of Art and Science in the Eighteenth Century: L. Spengler, Artist, Turner and Natural Scientist,” Annals Sci. 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerlac, H., 1977. “Newton's Changing Reputation in the Eighteenth Century,” in Essays and Papers in the History of Modern Science, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Gusfield, L. J., 1976. “The Literary Rhetorics of Science,” American Sociological Review 41.Google Scholar
Gutting, G., ed., 1980. Paradigms and Revolutions, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J., 1971. “Die Universälitatsanspruch der Hermeneutik,” in Hermeneutik und Ideologiekritik, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hagstrom, W. O., 1965. The Scientific Community, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., 1978. Language as Social Semiotics, London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Harvey, B., 1980. “The Effects of Social Context on the Process of Scientific Investigation,” in The Social Process of Scientific Investigation, ed. Knorr, K. D. et al. , Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Healan, P. A., 1972. “Hermeneutics of Experimental Science in the Context of the Life-World,” Philosophia Mathematica 9.Google Scholar
Heimann, P. M., 1978. “Science and the English Enlightenment,” Hist. Sci. 16.Google Scholar
Henrichs, N., 1968. Bibliographic der Hermeneutik, München: Saur.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, A., 1955. “The Scientific and Literary Uses of Language,” in Symbols and Society, ed. Bryson, L., New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Holton, G., 1978. “Can Science Be Measured?” in Toward a Metric of Science, ed. Elkana, Y. et al. , New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Holton, G. and Blanpied, G. A., eds., 1976. Science and Its Public: The Changing Relationship, Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Hume, D., 1748. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacob, J. R., 1978. “Boyle's Atomism and the Restoration Assault on Pagan Naturalism,” Soc. Stud. Sci. 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacob, J. R. and Jacob, M. C., 1976. “Seventeenth Century Science and Religion: The State of the Argument,” Hist. Sci. 14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacob, M. C., 1971. “The Church and the Formulation of the Newtonian World-View,” Journal of European Studies 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacob, M. C., 1976. The Newtonians and the English Revolution, Hassocks: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Jardine, N. A., 1981. “Philosophy of Science and the Art of Historical Interpretation,” in Theory Change, Ancient Axiomatic and Galileo's Methodology, ed. Hintikka, J., and Gruender, D., Dordrecht: Reidel, Vol. 1.Google Scholar
Jauss, H. R., 1970. Literaturgeschichte als Provokation, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Kant, I., 1790. Kritik der Urteilskraft.Google Scholar
Kisiel, T., 1974. “Comments on Healan, 1972,” Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 4.Google Scholar
Kisiel, T., 1976. “Hermeneutic Models for the Natural Sciences,” in Phänomenologische Forschungen, ed. Orth, E. W., Freiburg: Alber, 2.Google Scholar
Kisiel, T., 1978. “Heidegger and the New Images of Science,” in Radical Phenomenology, ed. Sallis, J., Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Knorr, K. D., 1975. “The Nature of Scientific Consensus and the Case of Social Sciences,” in Determinants and Controls of Scientific Development, ed. Knorr, K. D. et al. , Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, K. D., 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge, Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T., 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed., Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T., 1977. The Essential Tension, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatoss, I., 1970. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lammers, C. J., 1974. “Mono- and Poly-Paradigmatic Developments in Natural and Social Sciences,” in Social Process of Scientific Development, ed. Whitley, R., London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Latour, B. and Fabri, P., 1977. “La rhétoriquedela science,” Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales 13.Google Scholar
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S., 1979. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Fact, Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Lawrence, C., 1979. “The Nervous System and Society in the Scottish Enlightenment,” in Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture, ed. Barnes, B. and Shapin, S., Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Lepenies, W., 1979. “Der Wissenschaftler als Autor,” Akzente 25.Google Scholar
Leonardo da Vinci, , 1980. Notebooks, selected and edited by Richter, I. A., Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McGuire, J. E. and McEvoy, J. G., 1975. “God and Nature: Priestley's Way of Rational Dissent,” Historical Studies in Physical Science 6.Google Scholar
Markus, G., 1984. “Interpretations of, and Interpretation in Philosophy,” Critical Philosophy (Sydney) 1.Google Scholar
Marx, K., [1844] 1968. “Okonomisch-philosophische Manuskripte,” reprinted in Marx-Engels-Werke, Berlin: Dietz, 1.Google Scholar
Mendelsohn, E., 1964. “The Emergence of Science as a Profession in Nineteenth Century Europe,” in The Management of Scientists, ed. Hill, K., Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Mulkay, M., 1981. “Action and Belief or Scientific Discourse?” Phil. Soc. Sci. 11.Google Scholar
Nelson, B., 1975. “Certitude and the Book of Scripture, Nature, and Conscience,” in The Nature of Scientific Discovery, ed. Gingerich, O., Washington: Smithsonian Institute.Google Scholar
Nicolson, M. H., 1946. Newton Demands the Muse, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Olschki, L., 1922. Geschichte der neusprachlichen wissenschaftlichen Literatur, Leipzig: Olschki, 2.Google Scholar
Oromaner, M., 1977. “The Career of Sociological Literature: A Diachronous Study,” Soc. Stud. Sci. 1.Google Scholar
Pickering, A., 1981. “The Hunting of the Quark,” Isis 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, M., 1964. Personal Knowledge, New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Porter, R., 1978. “Gentlemen and Geology: The Emergence of a Scientific Career,” The Historical Journal 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, R., 1980. “Science, Provincial Culture and Public Opinion in Enlightenment England,” British Journal of Eighteenth Century Studies 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricken, U., 1978. “Le champ lexical ‘science-litérature’ en Français et en Alle-mand,” Dix-Huitième Siècle 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riedel, M., 1979. “Die Universalität der europäischen Wissenschaft als begriffs- und wissenschaftsgeschichtliches Problem, Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschafts-theorie 10.Google Scholar
Riffaterre, M., 1983. Text Production, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, S., 1962. “Scientist: The Story of a Word,” Annals Sci. 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothacker, E., 1979. Das ‘Buch der Natur,’ Bonn: Bouvier.Google Scholar
Santillana, G. de, 1959. “The Role of Art in the Scientific Renaissance,” in Critical Problems in the History of Science, ed. Clagett, M., Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Schaffer, S., 1980. “Natural Philosophy,” in The Ferment of Knowledge, ed. Rousseau, G. S. and Porter, R., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schaffer, S., 1983. “Natural Philosophy and Public Spectacle in the Eighteenth Century,” Hist. Sci. 21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schofield, R.E., 1978. “An Evolutionary Taxonomy of Eighteenth- Century Newtonianisms,” in Studies in the Eighteenth Century Culture, ed. Runte, R., Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 7.Google Scholar
Shapin, S., 1974. “The Audience for Science in Eighteenth Century Edinburgh,” Hist. Sci. 12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapin, S., 1982. “History of Science and its Sociological Reconstruction,” Hist. Sci. 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapin, S., and Thackray, A., 1974. “Prosopography as a Research Tool in the History of Science,” Hist. Sci. 12.Google Scholar
Shils, E., 1981. Tradition, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Silliman, R. H., 1973. “Fresnel and the Emergence of Physics as a Discipline,” Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci. 4.Google Scholar
Smith, C. W., 1978. “A New Chart for British Natural Philosophy,” Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci. 9.Google Scholar
Solla Price, D. J. de, 1970. “Citation Measures of Hard Science, Soft Science, Technology and Nonscience,” in Communication among Scientists and Engineers, ed. Nelson, C. E., and Pollock, D. K., Lexington: Heath.Google Scholar
Stanzel, F. K., 1982. Theorie des Erzählens, 2d ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck.Google Scholar
Tenbruck, F. H., 1975. “Fortschritt der Wissenschaft als Trivialisierungsprozess,” Kölner Zeitschrift für Sociologie und Sozialpsychologie, Sonderheft 18.Google Scholar
Warning, R., ed., 1975. Rezeptionsästhetik: Theorie und Praxis, München: Fink.Google Scholar
Warning, R., 1983. “Der inszenierte Diskurs,” in Funktionen des Fiktiven, ed. Henrich, D. and Iser, W., München: Fink.Google Scholar
Whitley, R., 1977. “Changes in the Social and Intellectual Organisation of Sciences,” in The Social Production of Scientific Knowledge, ed. Mendelsohn, E. et al. , Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Woolgar, S., 1980. “Discovery: Logic and Sequence in a Scientific Text,” in The Social Process of Scientific Investigation, ed. Knorr, K. D. et al. , Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Zons, R. S., 1983. “Über den Ursprung des literarischen Werks aus dem Geist der Autorschaft,” in Kolloquium Kunst und Philosophic, ed. Oelmüller, W., München: Schöningh, 3.Google Scholar