M. W ladyka
On a dem andé d an s la discussion à 'partir d u quel m om ent nous pouvons p arler de l’histoire de la science — donc o n a posé le problèm e du com m encem ent et de l’origine de la science. Il me semble q u ’il fau t m entionner ici la théorie de l’école sociologique d’Em ile Durkheim .
O r, D urkheim est d ’avis q u e la science 'est u n e chose sociale. Il en est ainsi p o u r la religion qui — d’après D urkheim — est u n fait “ém i nem m ent social”. C ’e st dans la religion, c'est-à-d ire dans les' prem ières représen tation s collectives d ’u n e société 'donnée : dans sa cosmologie, dans ses représen tation s su r l ’origine d u monde, su r d’origine de l’âme hu m aine et son so rt posthum e — q u ’il fa u t chercher les prem iers éléments de la science et de la philosophie. Au co in s de révo lu tio n sociale, la science e t la philosophie rem placent (peu à p eu la religion. En ce qui concerne la technique, c’est d an s la m agie q u ’il e n fa u t chercher l’origine.
'La théorie de D urkheim fu t dépassée et sa v aleu r fu t mise en doute. Mais il fa u t le dire, elle possède u n aspect ju ste et in téressa n t qui pe\it in sp irer la réflexion su r la science e t su r ses; origines.
G. M. Dobrov
Y esterday and to-day ou r Symposium carries on th e discussion about w h eth er i t is o r it is n ot w o rth w hile to e x ten d th e h isto ry of science over th e contiguous branches of knowledge. In connection w ith the theses advanced in th e in teresting lectures of (Professor Suchodolski and Professor D aurnas I should like to em phasize th e idea th a t i r r e s p e c t i v e o f w h i c h p o i n t o f v i e w w i l l t r i u m p h t h e m a i n t h i n g f o ' r u s w a s , i s a n d w i l l r e m a i n a g r e a t e s t p o s s i b l e e x t e n s i o n a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f j u s t t h o s e v e r y a s p e c t s o f t h e h i s t o r y o f s c i e n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e i t s s p e c i f i c d i s t i n c t i o n a s a p e c u l i a r f o r m o f s c i e n t i f i c k n o w l e d g e .
One of such m a jo r aspects is — in m y opinion — th e active p arti cipation of th e historian of science an d technology in th e prognostication of prospects of scientific-technological progress. I t seem s th a t th e notion “scientific-technological prognosis” can be d eterm in ed in the following way:
T h e s c i e n t i f i c - t e c h n o l o g i c a l p r o g n o s i s i s a l o g i c a l l y s u b s t a n t i a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e f u t u r e o f s c i e n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y , t h e f o r m , t h e c o n t e n t s
D iscussion 8 9 a n d t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f w h i c h a r e d e f i n e d b y : p r e c e d e n t g e n e r a t i o n s e x p e r i e n c e w h i c h f o u n d i t s e x p r e s s i o n i n t h e e s t a b l i s h e d r e g u l a r i t i e s o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f s c i e n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y ; k n o w l e d g e a n d i d e a s i n h e r e n t ; i n t h e h i s t o r i c a l e p o c h i n w h i c h t h e p r o g n o s i s i s b e i n g w o r k e d o u t ; p o s s i b i l i t i e s , t h e r e a l i z a t i o n o f w h i c h d e p e n d s o n f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s .
A t present, the archives of prognoses are exceptionally rich. In o rder to m ake a segregation of th is m aterial, valu ab le for th e histo rian s of science a n d technology, in to k in d re d m ethodological groups, it was necessary to introduce th e notion of th ree ^levels o f scientific-tech nological prognosis”.
P r o g n o s e s o f t h e f i r s t l e v e l . They a re m ean t for about tw e n ty years ahead and s ta rt from th e req u irem en ts of practice and th e possibilities of science a n d technology w hich h av e become en tirely form ed to-day. It is v ery im p o rtan t to em phasize th a t in th e prognoses o f th is group th e re a re present, as a ru le, n o t o nly qualitative, b u t also quantitative estim ates. In case of a society developing o n p lan ned lines, those prognoses a re of a n objective ch aracter. They can be called perspective plans. In o rd er to illu stra te th e possibilities of o u r science I sh all adduce som e resu lts o f historico-techno logical research m ade use o f in th e prognoses of th e first level.
My colleagues w orking at the U krainian A cadem y of Sciences attain e d some practical re su lts illu stratin g w h a t possibilities a re at th e disposal of the historians of technology to con trib u te to th e prognoses of th e developm ent of technology for th e n e x t fu tu re. They arose in connection w ith th e fact th a t w h en m aking a historico-techno'logical analysis (w hen generalizing th e construction experience) of determ ined technological m eans w e alw ays striv e for elucidating concretely th e following 4 mo m ents: a) regu larities an d progressive tendencies established in th e given domain; b) genuine causes of th e fact th a t one o r an o th er technological solution was a t one tim e recognized as unsuccessful a n d rem ain ed for gotten and little known;«c) 'possibilities of com bining and utilizing an y p articu la r progressive ideas in h eren t in th e technological solutions which deservedly w en t aw ay in to th e p ast; d) ideas being of in terest for th e given k in d of technology w hich can be expressed according to the association and analogy w ith th e concrete experience of the p resen t- -day technology (in th e broad sense of th is notion).
On th e base of such an approach, fo r instance, one of o u r young colleagues (B. Sukhov), who 'studied th e h isto ry of th e developm ent of electro-m easuring instrum ents, has form ulated six suggestions a n d technological ideas recognized a s perspective a n d p ractically valuable.
They a re registered, now, in the ap p ro p riate p a te n t docum ents a n d are w idely adopted in practice.
I have had occasion m yself for th e last 13 y ears to deal w ith
d ifferen t aspects of th e h isto ry of m achines for coal m ining. The fol lowing -can be reg ard ed as one of th e resu lts of th a t w ork. O n th e one hand, th e re have b een specified a n d concretized th e dem ands m ade in d ifferen t specific conditions of coal output. On th e o th e r hand, th ere has been w orked o u t a generalizing ta b le of technological ideas, for mulait ed fo r th e last 70 yearls in 'connection w ith th e req u irem en ts of the concrete c o n d itio n s o f coal output. On th a t basis, it h as been found possible to d raw conclusions a s reg ard s th e perspective problem s of constructing n ew m achines, a n d to fo rm u late th e ir fu tu re technological characteristics.
P r o g n o s e s o f t h e s e c o n d ( l e v e l . They a re m eant for a m ore d istant fu tu re (about 50 yeans). The q u an titativ e estim ates give w ay here to th e qu alitativ e ones. The fundam ental problem s of science are being re fe rre d to m ore freq u en tly th an th e concrete technological ideas. A s th e obvious restrictiv e lim its of such prognoses: th e re are not regard ed th e eoonomic possibilities, b u t — u su ally — th e law s a n d pro positions of n a tu ra l a n d applied sciences, m ore o r less clearly form ulated to-day. It is conditionally believed, besides, th a t those v ery propositions will n o t be —• in substance — reconsidered in th e prognosticated period.
As a concrete exam ple of such prognoses,, a sin g le w ork of D. Thom son Foreseeable F uture m ay b e cited.
P r o g n o s e s o f t h e t h i r d l e v e l . They a re m eant for a period of th e n ex t h un d red years o r so, a n d are, as a rule, of p u rely hypothetical character. The q u an titativ e estim ates a re fo r th e most p a rt absent h ere and th e q u alitativ e ones a re only confined to th e lim its of the m ost general law s of n atu re. One of th e exam ples of 'such prognoses are, for instance, th e w orks of th e N obel prize laureate, th e academ ician N. N. Semenov.
M ost of th e scientists find it possible to ap p ly to th e prognoses of th e second echelon th e principle of ex trap o latio n of cu rv es of scientific developm ent ty pical of o u r tim e (such, for instance, as have been con stru cted b y o u r A m erican colleague, P rofessor Price).
On th e o th er hand, th e prognoses of th e th ird lev el m u st probably be approached in a fundam entally different w ay. In ord er to resolve the question of th e fu tu re fates of scientific-technological progress, th e scientists o ught to exam ine thoroughly th e influence ex erted upon it by th e following th re e fundam ental groups of factors: a) social conditions of developm ent an d utilization of science a n d technology; b) lim its of the developm ent of science and technology im posed upon by N ature;
D iscussion 91
c) in te rn a l contradictions o f th e developm ent of science a n d tech nology.
A lone th is superficial su rvey of problem s facing th e h isto rian s o f science a n d technology in connection w ith th e task of p rogress pro gnostication show s — in ou r opinion — how absorbing a n d how g rate fu l is th e field o f action o f those w ho 'had dhosan, ilike ourselves, th e profession of historians of science a n d technology.
En( outpe a p ris la paro le maos' n ’a p as envoye sa contribution M. Daumas.
