《博物学家与皇帝》:三幕悲剧或者《历史如何不再是了解自然的一种方式》

J. Riskin
{"title":"《博物学家与皇帝》:三幕悲剧或者《历史如何不再是了解自然的一种方式》","authors":"J. Riskin","doi":"10.1086/697169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"M y subject is a crucial episode in the story of how historical explanation fell out of favor as an element of naturalist understanding: how history found itself banished from science. This is a subject close to my heart since I teach at Stanford, where the social and intellectual world, at least among the students, is divided into the Techies and the Fuzzies. Mine of course are the Fuzzies, but it’s a deeply unjust misnomer: they are as rigorous and empirical as any engineer. More to my point here, the Techies’ intellectualworld is greatly limited by its segregation from theirworld, my Fuzzies’, and specifically, from historical knowledge as a mode of naturalist scientific understanding. But I meant to begin not at Stanford, but with Napoleon. Bear with me. I want to begin with Napoleon’s disdain for historical and philosophical forms of explanation in science, and his preference for a scientific approach thatwas specifically neither philosophical nor historical.","PeriodicalId":187662,"journal":{"name":"KNOW: A Journal on the Formation of Knowledge","volume":"94 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Naturalist and the Emperor, a Tragedy in Three Acts; or, How History Fell Out of Favor as a Way of Knowing Nature\",\"authors\":\"J. Riskin\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/697169\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"M y subject is a crucial episode in the story of how historical explanation fell out of favor as an element of naturalist understanding: how history found itself banished from science. This is a subject close to my heart since I teach at Stanford, where the social and intellectual world, at least among the students, is divided into the Techies and the Fuzzies. Mine of course are the Fuzzies, but it’s a deeply unjust misnomer: they are as rigorous and empirical as any engineer. More to my point here, the Techies’ intellectualworld is greatly limited by its segregation from theirworld, my Fuzzies’, and specifically, from historical knowledge as a mode of naturalist scientific understanding. But I meant to begin not at Stanford, but with Napoleon. Bear with me. I want to begin with Napoleon’s disdain for historical and philosophical forms of explanation in science, and his preference for a scientific approach thatwas specifically neither philosophical nor historical.\",\"PeriodicalId\":187662,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"KNOW: A Journal on the Formation of Knowledge\",\"volume\":\"94 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"KNOW: A Journal on the Formation of Knowledge\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/697169\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"KNOW: A Journal on the Formation of Knowledge","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/697169","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

我的主题是历史解释作为自然主义理解的一个元素如何失宠的故事中的一个关键情节:历史如何发现自己被科学所排斥。自从我在斯坦福教书以来,这个话题一直是我的心头之物。斯坦福的社会和知识界,至少在学生中,被分为技术派和模糊派。我的当然是“模糊”,但这是一个非常不公正的用词:他们和任何工程师一样严谨和经验。更重要的是,技术人员的知识世界与他们的世界(我的模糊者),特别是与作为自然主义科学理解模式的历史知识的隔离,极大地限制了他们的知识世界。但我不是打算从斯坦福开始,而是从拿破仑开始。听我说。我想从拿破仑对科学中历史和哲学形式的解释的蔑视开始,他偏爱一种既不是哲学也不是历史的科学方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Naturalist and the Emperor, a Tragedy in Three Acts; or, How History Fell Out of Favor as a Way of Knowing Nature
M y subject is a crucial episode in the story of how historical explanation fell out of favor as an element of naturalist understanding: how history found itself banished from science. This is a subject close to my heart since I teach at Stanford, where the social and intellectual world, at least among the students, is divided into the Techies and the Fuzzies. Mine of course are the Fuzzies, but it’s a deeply unjust misnomer: they are as rigorous and empirical as any engineer. More to my point here, the Techies’ intellectualworld is greatly limited by its segregation from theirworld, my Fuzzies’, and specifically, from historical knowledge as a mode of naturalist scientific understanding. But I meant to begin not at Stanford, but with Napoleon. Bear with me. I want to begin with Napoleon’s disdain for historical and philosophical forms of explanation in science, and his preference for a scientific approach thatwas specifically neither philosophical nor historical.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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