34 O b je t e t p ro b lèm es de l’h istoire de la science
J. B, Pogrebyssky
The v ery in terestin g a n d p ith y lectu re of P rofessor Suchodolski gives occasion to m any reflections and rem arks. H aving no objection against the general purpose of th e lecture, I w ish to express m y opinion about one of its sections: Science as a M atter of Scientists and as That o f the H um hn W ork.
A t firs t — about th e role of p erson ality in th e h istory of science. I t is obvious th a t th e approach to this question o ught to be a historical one. The -significance o f th e perso nality facto r gets changed considerably from epoch to epoch in aid fields of th e hu m an activities, an d besides no t alw ays in th e same direction. B ut I can n o t now develop this point a t greater 'length. I wi'll only point o u t th a t th e ideas in th e sp irit of Carlyle, bring in g th e history of science to th e h istory of activities of its m ost p rom in ent representatives, w hich in th e ir o v e rt form — as it appears — h av e no m ore follow ers now, m ay come o u t in a disguised, so to say, in a depersonalized form.
We m ean th ereb y th e exposition of th e h isto ry of science as the histo ry of its greatest achievem ents. It is w o rth saying so, since such an exposition occurs fre q u e n tly enough. A nd th is is no coincidence: this is th e line of least resistance. Irrespective o f to w h at degree th e greatest achievem ents of science are collective or individual, irrespective of how m uch — w ith such an exposition — the* activities of p articu lar scientists do advance to th e forefront, w e have to do, in a m ore o r less depersonalized form, w ith th e approach to th e h isto ry of science a s th e history of “heroes” or ‘h e ro ic deeds”.
I shall give only one example, of how badly g ets distorted, w ith that, th e historical perspective. As fa r a s th e m athem atics o f th e firs t decades of th e X lX th cen tu ry is concerned, th e following theories are to be ran k ed am ong its greatest achievem ents: th e th eo ry of analytical func tions, th e non-euclideain geom etry, th e th eo ry of g roups 1(1 deliberately om it th e nam es). M eanwhile, th e last tw o theories u p to th e m iddle of the century did not a ttra c t any attention, and to the first of them was devoted o nly a sm all p a rt of m athem atical w orks of th a t time.
Thus, in ord er to im agine th e sta te of science in o ne o r an o th er period (else one cannot analyse th e course of its developm ent n o r elicit th e factors determ ining it), it is necessary not only to* define its general ch aracter b u t also to show its base, its foundations, its potentialities. V aluable d a ta of th a t k in d m ay b e obtained w h en statistically processing th e published w orks from th e view point of su b jects an d trends, When studying th e activities of second-rate an d th ird -ra te scientists, When analysing th e in structional and popular-scientific literatu re, w hen using the data concerning th e scientific institu tio n s a n d educational
establish-D iscussion 35
m en ts (the last centuries, of course, toeing h e re 'kept in view). W ithout th at, th e characteristic of th e state of science w ill in ev itab ly tu rn o u t incom plete.
N. I. Rodnyi
In th e re p o rt of Professor Suchodolski, th e re have b een touched a n u m ber of interesting problem s, in p a rtic u la r th e p roblem concerning the fun dam ental tre n d s of th e histo ry of science. L et m e say some words about th e negative side of this problem : w h at w orks on th e history of science are anti-scientific and should be th e re fo re -flatly denied. To th a t so rt of “w orks” m ay be — w e th in k — a ttrib u te d th e following ones:
1) w orks of poor quality, th a t is w orks evidencing th e a u th o r’s m isunderstanding of th e research subject, h is ignorance of its d iffere n t aspects — w hich o ften tak es place as a re su lt of an isolated exam ination of th e subject, as a re s u lt of te arin g it alway from those phenom ena an d processes whose p a rt it is and w ith w hich it is 'linked closely a n d inse parab ly ;
2) w orks in w hich th e m obilization of th e historical and scientific m a terial is of tendentious ch aracter a n d is made use of fo r th e purpose o f argueing a preconceived p o in t o f view;
3) those w orks, finally, Whose historico-iscientific conception does n o t rep resen t a logical generalization of th e real m ovem ent of hum an cognition, b u t h as b een 'brought in from w ithout, has b een d ictated by th e m otives alien to science, b y the considerations of racial, nationalistic a n d another Character.
C ertainly, th e w orks in th e dom ain of th e h isto ry of science cannot (be b rought to only one trend, b u t th e y rep resen t a com plex of various trends; am ong them , how ever, w e are to Choose a tre n d w hich o u ght to be th e dom inating, th e generalizing one. It is ju st th a t tre n d to Which belong th e w orks concerned w ith th e logical generalization of th e h isto ry of science, i.e. w ith disclosing th e 'logic of th e developm ent of science, th e laws of its evolution. I t is precisely th is tre n d th a t focuses th e diverse investigationis in th e field of th e h isto ry o f science, m aking use of th em 'in order to disclose th e logic of form ation, developm ent and change of ideas, th e ir relatio n to th e h isto ry of ideas under, th e sign of w hich the developm ent of m ankind is going on at the various stages of its history, th e ir lin k w ith th e research m ethods, w ith th e concrete s tru c tu re of th e task s of science, w ith th e influences ex erted b y practice upon, science, etc. The sense of those investigations consists in th a t their m ost im p o rtan t re su lt is the reflection of science.
