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.
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.
