{"title":"Goethe and Candolle: National forms of scientific writing?","authors":"Agatha Seo-Hyun Kim, Andrew McNutt","doi":"10.1007/s12064-022-00376-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>What role does nationality-or the image of a nation-play in how one thinks and receives scientific ideas? This paper investigates the commonly held ideas about \"German science\" and \"French science\" in early nineteenth-century France. During the politically turbulent time, the seemingly independent scientific community found itself in a difficult position: first, between the cosmopolitan ideals of scientific community and the invasive political reality, and second, between the popularized image of national differences and the actual comparisons of international scientific ideas. The tension between multiple sets of fictions and realities underscores the fragility of the concept of nationality as a scientific measure. A case study comparing morphological ideas, receptions in France, and the actual scientific texts of J. W. von Goethe and A. P. de Candolle further illustrates this fragility. Goethe and Candolle make an ideal comparative case because they were received in very different lights despite their similar concept of the plant type. Our sentence-classification and visualization methods are applied to their scientific texts, to compare the actual compositions and forms of the texts that purportedly represented German and French sciences. This paper concludes that there was a gap between what French readers assumed they read and what they really read, when it came to foreign scientific texts. The differences between Goethe's and Candolle's texts transcended the perceived national differences between German Romanticism and French Classicism.</p>","PeriodicalId":54428,"journal":{"name":"Theory in Biosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory in Biosciences","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-022-00376-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
What role does nationality-or the image of a nation-play in how one thinks and receives scientific ideas? This paper investigates the commonly held ideas about "German science" and "French science" in early nineteenth-century France. During the politically turbulent time, the seemingly independent scientific community found itself in a difficult position: first, between the cosmopolitan ideals of scientific community and the invasive political reality, and second, between the popularized image of national differences and the actual comparisons of international scientific ideas. The tension between multiple sets of fictions and realities underscores the fragility of the concept of nationality as a scientific measure. A case study comparing morphological ideas, receptions in France, and the actual scientific texts of J. W. von Goethe and A. P. de Candolle further illustrates this fragility. Goethe and Candolle make an ideal comparative case because they were received in very different lights despite their similar concept of the plant type. Our sentence-classification and visualization methods are applied to their scientific texts, to compare the actual compositions and forms of the texts that purportedly represented German and French sciences. This paper concludes that there was a gap between what French readers assumed they read and what they really read, when it came to foreign scientific texts. The differences between Goethe's and Candolle's texts transcended the perceived national differences between German Romanticism and French Classicism.
期刊介绍:
Theory in Biosciences focuses on new concepts in theoretical biology. It also includes analytical and modelling approaches as well as philosophical and historical issues. Central topics are:
Artificial Life;
Bioinformatics with a focus on novel methods, phenomena, and interpretations;
Bioinspired Modeling;
Complexity, Robustness, and Resilience;
Embodied Cognition;
Evolutionary Biology;
Evo-Devo;
Game Theoretic Modeling;
Genetics;
History of Biology;
Language Evolution;
Mathematical Biology;
Origin of Life;
Philosophy of Biology;
Population Biology;
Systems Biology;
Theoretical Ecology;
Theoretical Molecular Biology;
Theoretical Neuroscience & Cognition.