Postscriptum**

IF 0.6 2区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Hans-Jörg Rheinberger
{"title":"Postscriptum**","authors":"Hans-Jörg Rheinberger","doi":"10.1002/bewi.202200028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Lara Keuck and Kärin Nickelsen, the organizers of this special issue and its workshop, invited me to contribute a closing commentary, and I feel honored and pleased to do so. Now that the English version of the book that inspired it is forthcoming,<sup>1</sup> it might be better to look ahead instead of looking back. Therefore, I will try to convey in my concluding remarks less the air of a closure than that of an outlook on things to come. And I hope I will be forgiven the rather rhapsodic character of what follows.</p><p>I will organize my remarks along the three sections of the issue, Conjunctures, Traces, and Fragments, before concluding with a brief note on historical epistemology. But first, let me comment on the title of my new book: <i>Spalt und Fuge</i>, in English, <i>Split and Splice</i>. The title was chosen with deliberation. <i>Spalten</i>, to split, and <i>fügen</i>, to splice, are the two cardinal activities of experimentation. I consciously avoid the traditional notions of analysis and of synthesis. They are logical categories that have been imported into the practice of experimentation; they have not grown out of it, and they suggest neat divisions and equally neat fusions. Neither is characteristic of the experiment. Experimentation, as a process of finding one's way into the unknown, needs more practice-oriented categories in order to apprehend its moves. If you split a log, the wood resists, and the products of your wedging activity will show uneven faces, depending on the knots and inner structure of the trunk. The same holds true for the object of your experimental inquiry; knowledge of these structures is of utmost importance for experimental exploration. If you splice a rope or if you graft a twig onto your vine, the points of suture will remain visible as signs of a mutilation. So will the pieces of your experimental activity, if joined to form a whole again. And it is indeed of utmost epistemic importance for the ongoing experimental process not to forget that these sutures always are—and will have to be—provisional. The title of this phenomenology of experimentation, <i>Split and Splice</i>, aims at calling to mind these epistemic uncertainties, inherent in the life of epistemic things.</p>","PeriodicalId":55388,"journal":{"name":"Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9545043/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bewi.202200028","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Lara Keuck and Kärin Nickelsen, the organizers of this special issue and its workshop, invited me to contribute a closing commentary, and I feel honored and pleased to do so. Now that the English version of the book that inspired it is forthcoming,1 it might be better to look ahead instead of looking back. Therefore, I will try to convey in my concluding remarks less the air of a closure than that of an outlook on things to come. And I hope I will be forgiven the rather rhapsodic character of what follows.

I will organize my remarks along the three sections of the issue, Conjunctures, Traces, and Fragments, before concluding with a brief note on historical epistemology. But first, let me comment on the title of my new book: Spalt und Fuge, in English, Split and Splice. The title was chosen with deliberation. Spalten, to split, and fügen, to splice, are the two cardinal activities of experimentation. I consciously avoid the traditional notions of analysis and of synthesis. They are logical categories that have been imported into the practice of experimentation; they have not grown out of it, and they suggest neat divisions and equally neat fusions. Neither is characteristic of the experiment. Experimentation, as a process of finding one's way into the unknown, needs more practice-oriented categories in order to apprehend its moves. If you split a log, the wood resists, and the products of your wedging activity will show uneven faces, depending on the knots and inner structure of the trunk. The same holds true for the object of your experimental inquiry; knowledge of these structures is of utmost importance for experimental exploration. If you splice a rope or if you graft a twig onto your vine, the points of suture will remain visible as signs of a mutilation. So will the pieces of your experimental activity, if joined to form a whole again. And it is indeed of utmost epistemic importance for the ongoing experimental process not to forget that these sutures always are—and will have to be—provisional. The title of this phenomenology of experimentation, Split and Splice, aims at calling to mind these epistemic uncertainties, inherent in the life of epistemic things.

注:* *
Lara Keuck和Kärin Nickelsen是本期特刊及其研讨会的组织者,他们邀请我发表结语,我对此感到荣幸和高兴。既然这本书的英文版即将出版,我们最好向前看,而不是回头看。因此,在我的结束语中,我将尽量传达一种对未来事物的展望,而不是结束的气氛。我希望大家能原谅我下面这段话的狂想曲性质。在对历史认识论做一个简短的总结之前,我将按照这个问题的三个部分来组织我的评论,即偶合、痕迹和片段。但首先,让我评论一下我的新书的标题:Spalt und Fuge,英文,分裂与拼接。这个题目是经过慎重选择的。Spalten(分裂)和f gen(拼接)是实验的两个主要活动。我有意识地避免分析和综合的传统概念。它们是被引入实验实践的逻辑范畴;它们并没有从中生长出来,它们暗示着整齐的分裂和同样整齐的融合。这两者都不是实验的特征。实验,作为一个寻找通往未知的道路的过程,需要更多以实践为导向的范畴来理解它的动作。如果你劈开一根原木,木头会抵抗,你的楔入活动的产物会显示出不均匀的表面,这取决于树干的结和内部结构。这同样适用于你实验探究的对象;了解这些结构对实验探索是至关重要的。如果你把一根绳子拼接起来,或者把一根小树枝嫁接到藤蔓上,缝合点会作为残缺的迹象留下。你的实验活动的碎片,如果重新组合成一个整体,也会如此。而且,对于正在进行的实验过程来说,不要忘记这些缝合线总是——而且必须是——暂时的,这确实是最重要的认识。这个实验现象学的标题,分裂与拼接,旨在唤起人们对这些认知的不确定性的记忆,这些不确定性存在于认知事物的生命中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte
Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 社会科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
16.70%
发文量
43
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Die Geschichte der Wissenschaften ist in erster Linie eine Geschichte der Ideen und Entdeckungen, oft genug aber auch der Moden, Irrtümer und Missverständnisse. Sie hängt eng mit der Entwicklung kultureller und zivilisatorischer Leistungen zusammen und bleibt von der politischen Geschichte keineswegs unberührt.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信