36 O b je t e t pro b lèm es de l’h istoire de la science
In th e In stitu te of H istory of Science an d Technology o f th e Soviet Academ y of Sciences, w orks have been sta rte d i n th e given direction, and we hope to inform you of th e first resu lts at one of th e next forum s devoted to th e h isto ry of science and technology.
E. N. Hiebert i
Professor Suchodolski’s rem a rk s concerning th e need fo r extending the rang e a n d perspective of th e h isto ry of science an d technology dem and ou r genuine support. We can bro aden ou r goails so as to- include the stu d y of th e in teractio n betw een th e sciences a n d th e hum anities; bu t this m u st be accomplished w ithout a n y dilution of th e historical analysis itsielf. The w ell of available know ledge is deep. Indeed it is bottomless.
In m y ow n area of special in te re st — th e physical sciences since 1800 — we need to realize th a t in a n y trad itio n al sense of w riting history, th e h isto ry of science and technology for th is period sim ply cannot be w ritten. The d ifficulty is predom inantly n o t one of finding th e m aterials b u t of m aking w ise selections from among th e chaos of po tentially relev an t documents. W herever w e begin we begin arb itrarily . W hatever w e do in o u r historical analysis w e do it w ith a great deal of arbitrariness. Broad m ay b e th e goals. Else we search for th a t p u re objective h isto ry {a figm ent of the im agination) 'Which is excruciatingly , ■dry an d dull. If o u r analysis is to b e a m eaningful one, w h atev er phase of h um an activ ity it m ay envelop, it m u st necessarily be a specific one.
The specificity of a focus, although adm itted arb itrarily , provides th e point of d ep artu re to w ork outw ards w hile m astering w h atev e r docu m ents a n d tools one needs along th e w ay. The a lte rn a te approach is to em brace a b road and general problem an d th e n cut aw ay th e fa tty deposits in o rd er to expose th e vital nerves. T h at can easily develop into a hopeless task. F o r to exam ine ev ery th in g th a t is rele v an t to a problem is beyond th e reach of hum an powers. Even to discuss w h at is im p o rtan t is impossible.
So I suggest th a t it is th e narro w ly focused problem w hich can be u n d erta k e n w ith efficiency an d rew ard s — a t least as th e p o in t of departure. B ut then , of course, th e w isdom w hich en te rs into m aking th e choice of the focus for th e analysis is itself p red eterm ined by th e b read th of vision and perspective w hich Professor Suchodolski has clarified for us so w ell u n d er th e larg e um brella w hich includes both the sciences an d th e hum anities.
