Objectivity, Collective Sight, and Scientific Personae

The International Mars Exploration Working Group (IMEWG) was formed in 1993 to provide a forum for the international coordination of Mars exploration. In 2007, IMEWG chartered the international Mars Architec-ture for the Return of Samples Working Group (iMARS WG), which produced a Phase 1 report in 2008 (iMARS, 2008). In 2014, IMEWG chartered an iMARS Phase 2 Working Group, comprising two panels of experts: (i) Engineering and (ii) Science/Earth Operations. Th e iMARS Phase 2 WG was tasked to provide: • A status report on planning for a Mars Sample Return (MSR) campaign, building on missions and international developments achieved since the iMARS Phase 1 WG issued its report; and• Recommendations for progressing toward campaign implementation, including a proposed sample man-agement plan.Th is report presents the iMARS Phase 2 WG’s fi ndings. It details top-level campaign requirements that would meet stated science objectives and planetary protection constraints. It presents an updated reference MSR architecture, made of three fl ight elements and one ground element (termed the 3+1 architecture). It provides technical and programmatic justifi cations for this architecture and report also discusses alternatives to the ref-erence architecture. Th e WG also reports on the status of MSR technology developments conducted by several space agencies around the world, evidence of the willingness of major space stakeholders to invest in MSR implementation. Th is report elaborates on programmatic considerations relating to MSR, including campaign robustness, international coordination and decision-making, a provisional implementation timeline, and a pos-sible cost-sharing model. In this report, the WG presents:• A returned-sample management plan, including an organizational structure for an international Mars sample science institute that outlines roles and responsibilities of key members and describes sample return facility requirements;• A science implementation plan, covering preliminary sample examination fl ow, sample allocation pro-cess, and data policies; and• A Mars sample curation plan, including sample tracking and routing procedures, sample sterilization considerations, and long-term archiving recommendations.Th e WG’s key conclusions are that:• It is feasible to return scientifi cally selected samples from Mars in 2031/33 under the proposed mission architecture, technology development roadmap, and sample management plan. A successful campaign will depend on early and binding agreements for long-term commitments by participating organisations.• Returning samples from Mars will require a multidisciplinary approach. Scientifi c, safety and curatorial Executive Summary S-2A Draft Mission Architecture and Science Management Plan for the Return Samples from MarsS-3Executive SummaryPhase 2 Report of the International Mars Architecture for the Return of Samples (iMARS) Working Groupaspects of the campaign must each be considered and integrated when developing mission architec-ture and sample management structure.• While the Mars exploration community has made progress in understanding planetary protection implications of MSR and associated technology developments, important requirements and protocols remain to be further developed.Th e WG’s key recommendations are that:• To advance development of MSR architecture, interested international partners must declare their interests, defi ne a cooperation framework, and determine their contributions.• An internationally-tasked and -accepted planetary protection protocol for MSR should be produced as soon as possible, as this protocol will have technical and programmatic implications for the mission architecture.• MSR campaign partners should establish an international MSR Science Institute as part of the campaign’s governance structure upon approval to return samples from Mars.• Two key MSR enabling technologies, the Mars ascent vehicle and sample containment (“break-the-chain-of-contact”), require further investments to proceed with development.

In the eighteenth century, the Spanish Crown underwrote several expeditions in order to collect, classify, and describe the newly available natural resources in the Americas. In an attempt to convey scientific information objectively, expedition artists had to depict their specimens with absolute fidelity. Because many of them had not mastered the techniques necessary for botanical illustration, despite their formal training, Jose Celestino Mutis created a school for local artists in the New Kingdom of Granada (present day Colombia). Pigments and dyes that artists could not obtain from Spain or from the major cities in the New World through which they passed were often derived from experimentation with local materials.

The importance of epistemic values in science is universally recognized, whereas the role of non-epistemic values is sometimes considered disputable. It has often been argued that non-epistemic values are more relevant in applied sciences, where the goals are often practical and not merely scientific. In this paper, we present a case study concerning earthquake engineering. So far, the philosophical literature has considered various branches of engineering, but very rarely earthquake engineering. We claim that the assessment of seismic hazard models is sensitive to both epistemic and non-epistemic values. In particular, we argue that the selection and evaluation of these models are justified by epistemic values, even if they may be contingently influenced by non-epistemic values. By contrast, the aggregation of different models into an ensemble is justified by non-epistemic values, even if epistemic values may play an instrumental role in the attainment of these non-epistemic values. A careful consideration of the different epistemic and non-epistemic values at play in the choice of seismic hazard models is thus practically important when alternative models are available and there is uncertainty in the scientific community about which model should be used.

Science is commonly conceived as a system of propositions tested and justified through rigorous methods, that seeks to achieve epistemic values such as objectivity, coherence, precision, systematization, generalization, explanatory and predictive force. Even less orthodox authors, like Thomas Kuhn who focuses not only on science as product but also as a specific kind of social practice, only takes into account epistemic values, and leaves aside moral, social and political considerations. From this point of view, science is morally and politically neutral. More recently some philosophers like Javier Echeverria (2002) and Leon Olive (2000) have pointed out the relevance of non- epistemic values to understand the development of science and technology. However, from Karl Popper to Larry Laudan, most philosophers of science consider that introducing social or political discussions in the context of justification of scientific theories represents a serious threat to the rationality of science. Those authors like Paul Feyerabend and Michel Foucault, who point out the intrinsic relationship between scientific truth and political power, are condemned as irrational postmodernists. Fortunately during the last decades the social, moral and political dimensions of science have caught the attention of philosophers, sociologists and historians of science in the scope of Science and Technology Studies (STS) (Fuller, 1993; Pickering, 1992; Mitcham, 1995; Ibarra and Lopez Cerezo, 2003). But this new and increasingly innovative discipline, although it challenges many presuppositions of standard philosophy of science (mainly logical empiricism), deals more with the interaction of science and technology in applied contexts (techno science) rather than with the intrinsic problems of justification of scientific theories. My main purpose here is to argue that it is necessary to consider moral and political questions in the core of epistemological and methodological problems of scientific theories that are typically discussed in traditional philosophy of science. Accordingly, the first part of my argument relies on two important philosophers of science from the beginning of the twentieth century: Pierre Duhem and Otto Neurath. Both criticized the widespread idea that the rationality and objectivity of science is exclusively based on a rigorous methodology, and both introduced moral, social and political considerations to clarify the nature of scientific rationality. Unfortunately these important insights of the founding fathers of the twentieth century philosophy of science have not been recovered and acknowledged by most of their philosophical heirs. After clarifying some important moral, social, and political aspects of scientific rationality, the second part of my argument uses the pragmatic view of scientific rationality to challenge the methodological and exclusively epistemic concept of rationality that originated with Plato and became the dominant view in modern philosophy through the work of Rene Descartes, Francis Bacon, and Thomas Hobbes. I also discuss the political consequences of methodological and epistemic rationality, taken together with the widespread idea that political and even ethical decisions must be based on scientific knowledge. I maintain that these two theses are not only false, but have strong authoritarian implications. Finally, the third part of my argument turns again to Neurath in order to suggest a republican way of relating science and political decisions, so as to promote social and political values, such as justice and democracy, alongside epistemic values. Empirical Underdetermination, Good Sense, and Auxiliary Motives In his book, The End and Structure of Physical Theory (1906), Pierre Duhem presented one of the most important issues of contemporary philosophy of science: the empirical Underdetermination of theories. This problem was subsequently developed by Willard Van Orman Quine and is commonly know as the Duhem-Quine thesis. …

While few would question the importance of the objectivity of science for providing a well-supported factual basis upon which policy decisions can be reliably made, it is far from clear what scientific objectivity is or how it should be achieved. In recent decades, questions regarding the objectivity of science have become increasingly salient in framing public debates about science and science policy: for example, can we trust medical research when it is funded by pharmaceutical companies? Or, whose research in climate science meets the standards of scientific objectivity? At the same time, the objectivity of science has become an increasingly important topic among historians and philosophers of science, as well as researchers in related fields in science and technology studies. In the wake of Karl Popper’s (1972) account of objective knowledge and Thomas Kuhn’s (1977) landmark analysis of scientific values in connection with issues of scientific objectivity and rationality, philosophers of science have attempted to clarify questions concerning the role of values in theory choice, the distinction between epistemic (or “cognitive”) and non-epistemic (or “social”) values, and the ways in which different kinds of values (including non-epistemic values) contribute to the objectivity of science. By contrast, historians of science have offered rich historical analyses that aim to clarify the changing historical meanings of objectivity by examining the emergence of particular scientific ideals in specific episodes in the history of science. These historical studies have revealed the complex, multifaceted, and ultimately contingent nature of the ideals that contribute to our current notions and understandings of scientific objectivity. Finally, sociologists and anthropologists of science have offered analyses that explicitly bring into question specific understandings of scientific objectivity as, for example, the disinterestedness or value neutrality of scientific work, by revealing the role of social processes—including the workings of structures of credit, rhetorical practices in science, and the pressure of funding regimes—in the production of scientific knowledge. Taken together, these investigations offer compelling reasons for thinking that scientific objectivity is much more complicated than one might have imagined. Two emergent themes from the science and technology studies literature are especially important in this regard.

<p>The Moon Village Association (MVA) is a global organization that aims to foster collaboration between nations, space agencies, industry and the public, in order to facilitate the creation of a Lunar Economy. Despite its name, the purpose of the organization is not to create a base on the Moon. The "Moon Village" is the collection of people and organizations here on Earth that will collectively set Lunar activities in motion.</p> <p>The MVA's pilot mission - sending a Camera to the Lunar Surface to capture images of the earth and recreate the “Overview Effect” - aims to test in action how combining the capabilities of the MVA’s individual and institutional members can lower the entry barrier to the Lunar economy.</p> <p>The technical objective of the mission is to capture and live-stream a video of the Earth for 1 Lunar Day. The data will be broadcasted and utilized to engage the scientific community and general public to maximize mission returns for this and future missions.</p> <p>The challenge:</p> <p>Compared to Earth orbit missions, lunar missions are less prevalent, more technically complex with extra risks and completely different investment scales and timelines. This means that non-institutional space players have fewer opportunities to participate in lunar science and the creation of the Lunar Economy. There is also a lot of untapped capacity in the non-space world: Drawing a parallel to GIS, Sat Comms, Navigation etc., and progress achieved due to publicly accessible space-asset data in non-space industries, the potential benefit of opening up Lunar exploration to more players seems self-evident. The challenge is, however, enabling this global potential.</p> <p> Our talk will address this issue and will be structured to cover the following points:</p> <p>Mission description: We will describe our goals, why we decided to put a camera on the Moon, what are the technical requirements and why we selected the “Overview Effect” as our main objective.</p> <p>MVA Collaboration framework outline: This will address how we combine our varied strengths within the MVA to create a mission and how we want to see our members putting missions together in the future, on their own initiative. </p> <p>The MVA role, the role of volunteers and institutional partners: We will present how the building blocks fit together, what each side offers and receives through this collaboration.</p> <p>Lessons learned from the pre-phase A and phase A of the mission: We will discuss technical, financial, managerial, outreach and public engagement aspects, method-of-working issues, what were the biggest challenges to milestone success and how they were overcome.</p> <p>Obstacles and challenges moving forward: We will address our cost and schedule elements, paths to funding and risk management, and also ethics and responsible culture setting.</p> <p>How can someone get involved: As we are looking to engage both the scientific community and the public, we will be presenting information on where one can stay updated with our work, and what are the options for participation, either as an individual, an institution or a company.</p> <p>The talk will be designed and delivered from First Payload Project team members. The team is made up of both space and non-space industry professionals, all volunteers distributed across multiple time zones, without common working hours and a high chance of most members never meeting in person. The team is supported by the MVA’s institutional members (agencies, educational institutions and industry) in the form of in-kind contributions: an exchange of services, knowledge or materials given by the institutional member due to synergies between the mission objectives and the member’s own scientific or business objectives.</p> <p>This presentation will not focus on technical or scientific objectives or results of the 1st MVA Payload Project but on the process that is being created as a rubric for future lunar projects. From planning to set-up and further, and with the understanding that this is an ongoing process, this talk will present a guide of sorts or in the very least a detailed example of the processes necessary for private-sector lunar missions that deviate from the normal client-supplier models of institutional and Earth orbit missions.</p>

Keeping Faith with Literature

Relevance. The alcohol sphere is one of the actively reformed spheres in the Russian economy. The state is constantly improving the regulatory arsenal in relation to alcohol in order to achieve a balance of public and fiscal interests. In this regard, the experience of the development of alcohol production in previous historical periods is of particular relevance, which allows us to see the logic of the development of distillery production. The purpose is to indicate the main directions of development of distillery production in Russia. The objectives of the study are determined by the goal and are to: to highlight the existing opinions about the time of the "birth" of distilling in Russia; to consider the smoking of wine as a production process; to identify trends in the development of alcohol production in the XVI – XVIII centuries. Methodology. The principles of historicism, consistency and scientific objectivity were the main ones in the preparation of the article. Individual scientific tasks were solved using special methods, including comparative, typo-logical and genetic. Results. The surviving sources do not allow us to determine the exact time of the appearance of distillery pro-duction in Russia. The authors who tried to find the "roots" of Russian distilling did not come to a common opinion: some believe that the distillation process was borrowed by Russians from Europeans; others – that wine smoking has been carried out in Russia since time immemorial, but the sources have not been preserved. Innovations in the production of bread wine for a significant chronological period were barely noticeable. The equipment of distilleries has been simple for many centuries, except that the vats eventually began to be heated not by an open fire, but by hot steam. Distilling remained traditional and agricultural, designed for the needs and capabilities of one traditionally conducted economy. Rye remained the main distillery material. In the process of malting, fermentation and distillation, a significant part of the product was lost. Government decrees had little effect on productivity and on the ways of smoking wine. Conclusion. The main directions of the development of distillery production in Russia consisted in the growth of the number of distilleries, the preservation of a primitive device for many years, the absence of the need for manu-facturers to coordinate the quantity and quality of products produced with the market.

In her account of scientific objectivity, feminist philosopher of science Helen Longino shows how scientific objectivity is not so much of individual practice, but rather a social commitment practiced by a scientific community, provided by the necessary accommodations for critical discourse. However, is this conception of scientific objectivity truly capable of living up to the social realities of critical discourse and deliberation within a scientific community? Drawing from Dutilh Novaes’ social epistemological account of argumentation, this paper highlights the challenges Longino’s scientific objectivity faces on a prescriptive and descriptive level, specifically in overcoming the various epistemic injustices Longino’s proposed structural accommodations for objectivity are still sensitive to. Dutilh Novaes’ social epistemological model of argumentation illustrates how the realities of critical debate too often don’t consist of true epistemic or knowledge exchange, even though such exchanges are essential to achieve Longino’s primary goal when redefining scientific objectivity: to wield out and address idiosyncratic background assumptions and individual bigotry that possibly influence a researcher’s scientific conduct.

How does one bring together those concepts derived from narrative theory and those from studies of eighteenth-century literature? Given that one set of concepts are universal and all encompassing, and the other deliberately particular and partial, how does one fit or accommodate the former to the latter? If the collected essays in Narrative Concepts in the Study of Eighteenth-Century Literature, edited by Steinby and Mäkikalli, do not provide a definitive answer to such questions, they do provide several fruitful approaches for interrogating concept formation and application in both fields. The collection largely does so while avoiding a particular trap: using eighteenth-century texts to fill out already extant narrative concepts, under the false belief that narratology gives “the tools for dealing with formal traits in narrative discourse, to which historical research adds content and context,” which the editors note is “simplistic and defective.”The introduction to Narrative Concepts provides a brief yet useful history of narrative theory from its classical to post-classical phase (notably past the period in the 1980s when narrative theory was “proclaimed as good as dead”). The editors mine the conflicts between how concepts are defined in narrative theory and in literary studies of the eighteenth century. While a concept in narrative theory “contains everything—and nothing but—what belongs to the content of the concept,” operating “universally and immutably,” for historically oriented literary critics concepts look different in different historical periods. But the more crucial difference might be that for literary scholars “forms... cannot be defined abstractly, apart from context.” Cumulatively, these differences, as the editors note, “are bound to cause difficulties in attempts to dovetail or fuse narratology with historical literary research.”Given that this fusing is what the volume aims to achieve, the editors have set themselves an arduous task, one compounded because (as these essays detail) narratological concepts are often derived from eighteenth-century novels themselves. The collection’s approach to these difficulties is scattershot but productive: although the collection proceeds in chapters around specific concepts (like “Focalization,” “Authorial Narration” and “Paratext”), the collection can also be understood to cluster around different options for taking up narrative theory in conjunction with eighteenth-century literature. I might have called those options “revise” (Fludernik, Kukkonen, Mäkikalli, Steinby, Nitschke, and Prichard), “reject” (Richetti, Birke, and Rogers), and “relate” (McKeon, Waldschmidt, and Ikonen).The bulk of the essays in the collection test concepts derived from narrative theory against eighteenth-century prose forms, with differing results. Monika Fludernik, for example, probes Franz Stanzel’s hypothesis that perspectivism (“the reader’s ability to visualize the setting in precise and empirically validatable terms”) comes only with focalization. Reading from Defoe to the Gothic novel, Fludernik argues perspectivism does not proceed in tandem with focalization, which come together only at the end of the nineteenth century. Karin Kukkonen also revises a narratological concept, tellability, via her reading of Maria Anna Sagar’s Karolinens Tagebuch (1774). While the marvelous is required for tellability, Kukkonen argues it has an “upper limit”: “the marvelous needs to be embedded in the probability of the fictional world so that it can lead readers back to an instructive realization about the real world.” Essays by the editors also revise, arguing definitions of realism must reconsider temporality: Mäkikalli marks the difference between the “cyclical” view of time in Oroonoko and the “chronological, concrete, ‘real’ and secular time” of Defoe; Steinby argues that Genette ignores “whether reality is seen as atemporally or temporally ordered.” Other scholars find the fit of concepts from narrative theory to eighteenth-century prose forms more apt even as they add nuance: Claudia Nitschke explores how immediacy is generated by different levels of the text and is tied to the emergence of a specific aesthetic of literature (reflecting on itself), while Penny Pritchard examines characterization in funeral sermons, both typical and not, and finds that these sermons are “strikingly comparable to contemporary works of fictional narrative.”A smaller set of essays in the collection operate more critically, using eighteenth-century literary texts to reject or altogether undo concepts provided by narrative theory. For Richetti, for example, plot in Fielding’s Tom Jones is “a visible rhetorical artifice,” and not “an unfolding or exploration of the uncertain destinies or developing identities of his characters.” Richetti argues that there is tension, however, between Fielding’s comic romance and the text’s own historicity (its critique of institutions), one made evident in the text’s minor characters. Dorothee Birke’s essay usefully critiques definitions of authorial narration as omniscient, controlling and thereby “reactionary.” She shows that, in texts like Tom Jones, narration instead reflects on “the problem of the novelist’s authority,” as “narratorial comments problematize authorial control at the same time at which they invoke it.” Finally, Rogers’s essay on Edmund Curll’s paratexts pulls a bit away from the aims of the collection. By providing lists of the operations of Curll’s excessive and eccentric paratexts, Rogers displays how they function far less like Genette’s threshold than Derrida’s substitute (replacing the main text). Indeed, as Rogers finally puts it, Curll “may be said to have taken [the paratext’s] use almost to the point where our habitual category comes close to dissolution.”In shadowing forth dissolution, Rogers’s essay operates as a provocation for the collection as a whole, in that it sketches inherent problems in narrative theory’s attempts to categorize, order, and define. These problems are considered anew in a set of essays that explore how concepts in eighteenth-century literature themselves reflect on boundary making, eschewing that making in favor of drawing relations. First, McKeon historicizes concept formation in narrative theory, arguing that Genette misreads Socrates and Plato, and that, following this misreading, Genette, Bal, and Watt get realism wrong (equating realism with mimesis). Further, McKeon argues that eighteenth-century literature (particularly free indirect discourse, which “thematize[s] its formal technique of representation”) challenges the supposedly universal categories of the narratologists, as it operates as “a reminder of the historicity of narrative form.” For Christine Waldschmidt, too, narrative theory could more directly address a particular relation of form and content: “the relation between narrative representation and its message.” Reading Lessing and Schiller, she argues that “in the eighteenth century, before the advent of a literature of disinterestedness, most narratives would present awareness of a tension between narrative form and the thought that they convey.” That tension is a possibility and sometimes a problem. Finally, Teemu Ikonen’s essay satisfyingly proposes a new understanding of peritext, as “dispositional” rather than a “stabilizing structure” that defines a narrative genre. Reading revisions made by Diderot and Laclos, Ikonen demonstrates that peritexts can create “hybrid forms and fluidity between author, narrator, and other discursive agents; between narrative and other discourse types; and interactions on the boundary between text and context.” As such, peritexts in eighteenth-century France “question the tendency to posit textual boundaries first and foremost as separators of the artistic text from its historical surroundings.” Ikonen’s essay is a fitting end for the collection as a whole: considering concepts as highlighting relations rather than marking boundaries, scholars of the eighteenth century might see in this collection new ways of integrating narrative theory into their own work.

Reviewed by: The Cambridge History of the Gothic. Vol. 1: Gothic in the Long Eighteenth Century ed. by Angela Wright and Dale Townshend, and: The Cambridge History of the Gothic. Vol. 2: Gothic in the Nineteenth Century ed. by Dale Townshend and Angela Wright JoEllen Mary DeLucia Angela Wright and Dale Townshend, eds., The Cambridge History of the Gothic. Vol. 1: Gothic in the Long Eighteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020). Pp. 516; 16 b/w illus. $155.00 cloth. Dale Townshend and Angela Wright, eds., The Cambridge History of the Gothic. Vol. 2: Gothic in the Nineteenth Century. (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020) Pp. 541; 14 illus. $155.00 cloth. Defining the Gothic has been a perennial problem. Is it a literary genre, an aesthetic, or a style? As a historical marker, does it refer to the liberty-loving Goths of pre-Roman Britain, a medieval chivalric culture, or is it a negative definition of modernity? During the long eighteenth-century, Gothic was used as an adjective to describe architecture, political values, and, later, literary texts; in the nineteenth century, the term largely disappeared. In the twentieth century, Victorian studies adapted the Gothic as a “retrospective construct” (II:15)—a category used to group everything from Bram Stoker’s Dracula to the Kelmscott Press’s The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer under the same umbrella. The Gothic’s search for a clear referent has had the sometimes frustrating but also liberating effect of evacuating the term of any clear meaning. Dale Townshend and Angela Wright, the editors of the first two volumes of The Cambridge History of the Gothic, argue that instead of linking the Gothic to a historical period, discipline, or set of formal characteristics, we should understand it as a “mode.” Mode in these volumes means something close to a method or approach, an active means of both interrogating dominant histories and writing “counter-history” (I: 6). The discontinuities and the unevenness in the application of the term Gothic make the case for it as an approach or process. As Robert Miles argues, the Gothic might best be understood as “a temporal contrast . . . between the premodern world of ghosts (timeless, circular, repetitious, with porous boundaries between the self and other, this world and the next), and the empty, chronometric, homogenous time of modernity” (I: 449); or, as Tom Duggett persuasively suggests, “a zeitgeist term—a word in the process of becoming, through contestation and self-contradiction” (II: 105). One of the great strengths of Townshend and Wright’s turn to mode instead of form is that they are able to develop a truly interdisciplinary collection of essays, putting literature, history, art, architecture, and drama into conversation with one another. At the same time, the constraints of the linear history demanded by the form of a three-volume Cambridge History, with separate volumes dedicated to the long eighteenth century, the nineteenth century, and a yet to be published volume on the twentieth century, work against the Gothic mode itself. As I read, I sometimes wished that the essays were grouped in a non-linear fashion, interrogating instead of replicating progressive historical form. Despite these formal constraints, the collected essays provide a fascinating interdisciplinary and transnational look at the Gothic, which almost always begins its story with Horace Walpole’s Castle of Otranto (1764); those in eighteenth-century studies would find these volumes most useful as a means of building a counternarrative of our period’s influence, one that contests the aesthetic and philosophical tenets of the neo-Classical and Enlightenment impulses that still dominate understandings of the eighteenth century; in addition, the collection would aid eighteenth centuryists in responding to recent calls to think and teach beyond the traditional boundaries of period and [End Page 1012] discipline and track the echoes of issues central to the eighteenth century across periods and national traditions. With the third volume yet to be released, this review only considers the first two volumes, which are dedicated to the long eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; they include an impressive forty-one essays from forty-two scholars writing from different disciplinary and national perspectives. In keeping with the Gothic mode, the essays are best read...

Relevance. This article is an attempt to compare the changes in the stone architectural ensemble of the Znamensky Monastery in the period from the second half of the XVII century to the beginning of the XIX century. This topic has been little studied, and therefore it is relevant and in demand.The purpose is to determine the boundaries and appearance of the Kursk Znamensky Monastery from the moment of its foundation until the beginning of the XIX century on the basis of available materials.Objectives: to compare the location of the monastery buildings with the modern urban relief and to establish the type of buildings.Methodology. The article is based on the principles of historicism, scientific objectivity and consistency, which are supplemented by the method of reconstruction, the comparative historical method. In the work, among other things, the technique of virtual 3d modeling is used.Results. By superimposing city plans of different times and modern satellite images, the possible location of the buildings of the Znamensky Monastery is determined, its appearance of buildings is described. It is established that the appearance of the "Kursk Kremlin" has been constantly changing during the time of its existence. Comparing the boundaries of the foundations and studying the principles of construction of similar structures with the preserved images of the monastery allowed us to recreate the boundaries and appearance of the Kursk shrine. Thanks to the 3d modeling technique, the architectural appearance of the ensemble of the Znamensky Monastery of the XVII – XVIII centuries has been recreated.Conclusion. The conducted research gave grounds to assert that the architectural Znamensky Monastery has been the "axis" of urban development since its foundation. Its appearance was, on the one hand, typical of the temples of medieval Russia, on the other, Kursk stood out from many other Russian cities.

Previous article FreeNotes on ContributorsPDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreJon Agar is Professor of Science and Technology Studies at University College, London. He is the author of Science in the Twentieth Century and Beyond (Polity/John Wiley, 2012) and The Government Machine (MIT Press, 2003).Jennifer Karns Alexander is a historian of technology in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and the Program in History of Science, Technology, and Medicine at the University of Minnesota. She is the author of The Mantra of Efficiency (Johns Hopkins, 2008), winner of the Society for the History of Technology's Edelstein Prize.Rachel A. Ankeny is a professor in the School of History and Politics at the University of Adelaide. She holds a master's in bioethics and a Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science; she specializes in history and philosophy of contemporary biology, particularly genetics, and worked in genetic counseling clinics in the 1980s.Theodore Arabatzis is Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Athens. He is the author of Representing Electrons: A Biographical Approach to Theoretical Entities (University of Chicago Press, 2006), coeditor of Kuhn's “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” Revisited (Routledge, 2012), and coeditor of the journal Metascience.Massimiliano Badino is Marie Curie Research Fellow at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and MIT. He has worked on the history and philosophy of modern physics, particularly on Planck's theory of black-body radiation and on Boltzmann's statistical mechanics. His current research project deals with the evolution of the concepts of order and chaos in mathematical physics from the three-body problem to the ergodic theorem.Charlotte Bigg is a historian of science at the CNRS/Centre Alexandre Koyré, Paris. She has coedited (with Jochen Hennig) Atombilder: Ikonografie des Atoms in Wissenschaft und Öffentlichkeit des 20. Jahrhunderts (Wallstein, 2009) and (with David Aubin and Otto Sibum) The Heavens on Earth: Observatories and Astronomy in Nineteenth-Century Science and Culture (Duke, 2010).Christian Bracco is an associate professor at the University of Nice Sophia Antipolis and a member of the team for history of astronomy at the Syrte Laboratory at the Paris Observatory. He specializes in the history of physics of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and also contributes to pedagogical publications that address historical problematics.Massimo Bucciantini teaches history of science at the University of Siena. His publications include Galileo e Keplero (Einaudi, 2003; trans., Les Belles Lettres, 2008), Esperimento Auschwitz / Auschwitz Experiment (Primo Levi Lecture) (Einaudi, 2011), and Il telescopio di Galileo: Una storia europea (with M. Camerota and F. Giudice) (Einaudi, 2012; trans., Harvard University Press, 2015).Adelene Buckland is Lecturer in Nineteenth-Century Literature at King's College, London. She is the author of Novel Science: Fiction and the Invention of Nineteenth-Century Geology (Chicago, 2013) and coeditor, with Beth Palmer, of A Return to the Common Reader: Print Culture and the Novel, 1850–1900 (Ashgate, 2011).Conor Burns teaches history of science and technology courses at Ryerson University in Toronto. His current research examines American field sciences in the period 1780–1850, with a particular focus on archaeology and geology.Christián C. Carman is a professor and researcher at the Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, Argentina, and a research member of the National Research Council of Argentina (CONICET). He works on topics related to philosophy of science as well as the history of ancient astronomy.Imogen Clarke is an independent scholar. She is interested in early twentieth-century physics and culture, science publishing, and the ether.Harold J. (Hal) Cook is the John F. Nickoll Professor of History at Brown University. He works mainly on early modern science and medicine and has published award-winning books, most recently Matters of Exchange: Commerce, Medicine, and Science in the Dutch Golden Age (Yale University Press, 2007).Ruth Schwartz Cowan is Janice and Julian Bers Professor Emerita of History and Sociology of Science at the University of Pennsylvania. Her most recent book is Heredity and Hope: The Case for Genetic Screening (Harvard, 2008). She is working on the sesquicentennial history of the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council.Brendan Dooley is Professor of Renaissance Studies at University College, Cork. He has previously taught history of knowledge and history of science at Harvard, Notre Dame, and Jacobs University in Bremen. His current publications include Brill's Companion to Renaissance Astrology (2014), Renaissance Now! (Peter Lang, 2014), and A Mattress Maker's Daughter: The Renaissance Romance of Don Giovanni de' Medici and Livia Vernazza (Harvard, 2014).Sven Dupré is Professor of History of Knowledge at the Freie Universität Berlin and Research Group Director at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science. He is the editor of Laboratories of Art: Alchemy and Art Technology from Antiquity to the Eighteenth Century (Springer, 2014).Richard England is Dean of the Sandra and Jack Pine Honors College and Professor of Philosophy at Eastern Illinois University. He is the coeditor (with Jude Nixon) of Victorian Science, Religion, and Natural Theology (2011) and one of three editors preparing an edition of the papers of the Metaphysical Society (1869–1880).James Evans is Director of the Program in Science, Technology, and Society at the University of Puget Sound. His research interests include the history of physics from the eighteenth century to the recent past, as well as ancient astronomy.Paul Lawrence Farber is an Oregon State University Distinguished Professor Emeritus. He has written primarily on the history of natural history and is now working on the tangled questions on race mixing in the first half of the twentieth century. His most recent book is Mixing Races: From Scientific Racism to Modern Evolutionary Ideas (Johns Hopkins, 2011).Amy E. Foster is an associate professor of history at the University of Central Florida, where she teaches the history of science, technology, and medicine. Her research includes the history of women and technology, particularly women in the U.S. space program.Craig Fraser is Chair of the International Commission for the History of Mathematics and Director of the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology at the University of Toronto. His primary field of interest is the history of analysis and mathematical mechanics.Jean-François Gauvin is the Director of Administration for the Collection of Historical Scientific Instruments at Harvard University. Since 2000 he has cowritten and coedited two prize-winning volumes as well as several articles and book reviews dealing with science museums, instruments, and instrument making. He teaches one course per semester at Harvard on the material culture of science.Alexa Geisthövel is a research associate at the Institute for the History of Medicine and Ethics in Medicine, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin. Her work is part of the ERC-funded research project “Ways of Writing: How Physicians Know, 1550–1950.”Francesco Gerali is a postdoctoral researcher at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. A native Italian who works on the history of the early oil industry, he moved to Mexico in 2011 to study the development of Mexican oil between 1860 and 1920.Yves Gingras ([email protected]) is Professor in the Department of History and Canada Research Chair in History and Sociology of Science at the Université du Québec à Montréal. He was President of the Canadian Science and Technology Historical Association (CSTHA) from 1988 to 1993 and Editor of Scientia Canadensis from 1995 to 2000. His most recent books are Sociologie des sciences (Presses Universitaires de France, 2012) and Les derives de l'évaluation de la recherché: Du bon usage de la bibliométrie (Raisons d'Agir, 2013). He is also the editor of Controverses: Accords et désaccords en sciences humaines et sociales (CNRS Éditions, 2014).Leila Gómez is Associate Professor of Latin American and Comparative Literatures at the University of Colorado, Boulder. She specializes in travel writing in Latin America; her publications include La piedra del escándalo: Darwin en Argentina (Buenos Aires, 2008), Iluminados y tránsfugas: Relatos de viajeros y ficciones nacionales en Argentina, Paraguay y Perú (Madrid, 2009), and Darwinism in Argentina: Major Texts (Lewisburg, 2011).Christopher D. Green is Professor of Psychology at York University, with cross-appointments to Science and Technology Studies and to Philosophy. His research is focused on turn-of-the-twentieth-century American psychology and on the use of digital methods in the history of science more broadly.Crystal Hall is Visiting Assistant Professor of Digital Humanities at Bowdoin College, where she is building a digital project on Galileo's personal library. She is the author of Galileo's Reading (Cambridge, 2013) and several articles on Galileo and literary studies in journals including Renaissance Quarterly and Quaderni d'Italianistica.Christopher Hamlin is Professor in the Department of History and the graduate program in History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Notre Dame and Honorary Professor in the Department of Public Health and Policy at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. His interests include natural theology, the history of public health, and the history of expertise. His most recent book is More Than Hot: A Short History of Fever (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014).John Henry recently retired from the University of Edinburgh, where he had been Professor of the History of Science and Director of the Science Studies Unit. He has published widely in the history of science, including an introductory textbook, A Short History of Scientific Thought (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).Jonathan B. Imber is Jean Glasscock Professor of Sociology at Wellesley College. He has been Editor-in-Chief of Society since 1998. He is the author of Trusting Doctors: The Decline of Moral Authority in American Medicine (Princeton University Press, 2008).Catherine Jackson is an assistant professor in the Department of the History of Science at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. She has published on Liebig, Hofmann, and nineteenth-century chemical laboratories and is the coeditor, with Hasok Chang, of An Element of Controversy: The Life of Chlorine in Science, Medicine, Technology, and War (2007).Danielle Jacquart is a professor at the École Pratique des Hautes Études (Paris), where she holds the chair for “History of Sciences in the Middle Ages.” She is the author of numerous publications on medieval medicine. Among the most recent are “Anatomy, Physiology, and Medical Theory,” in The Cambridge History of Science, Volume 2: Medieval Science (2013); and Recherches médiévales sur la nature humaine: Essais sur la réflexion médicale (SISMEL, 2014).Frank A. J. L. James is Professor of History of Science at the Royal Institution and at University College, London. He recently completed the six-volume edition of the Correspondence of Michael Faraday and is now working on a study of Humphry Davy's practical work.Mark Jenner is Reader in Early Modern History and Director of the Centre for Renaissance and Early Modern Studies at the University of York. His publications include Londinopolis (Manchester, 2000) and Medicine and the Market in England and Its Colonies, c. 1450–c. 1850 (Palgrave, 2007). He completing a book on ideas of cleanliness and dirt in early modern England.Masanori Kaji is Associate Professor of the History of Science at the Tokyo Institute of Technology. His research interests include history of chemistry in Russia and in Japan and environmental history. He is the author of Mendeleev's Discovery of the Periodic Law of Chemical Elements (1997).Vera Keller is an assistant professor at the Robert D. Clark Honors College of the University of Oregon. She is the author of over a dozen articles. Her first book, Knowledge and the Public Interest, 1575–1725 (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming), explores the role of interest theory in the reshaping of research in early modern Europe.Sally Gregory Kohlstedt is a professor in the Program in History of Science, Technology, and Medicine at the University of Minnesota. Her recent book, Hands-On Nature Study (2011), won the Margaret Rossiter Prize. She will spend her sabbatical year, 2014–2015, doing research on museum history at various sites, including the Smithsonian Institution and the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science.Brandon Konoval is on the faculty at the University of British Columbia, where he is cross-appointed in the Arts One Program and the School of Music. He has written most recently on Nietzsche and the Scopes trial for Perspectives on Science (2014) and on the relationship between Nietzsche and Foucault for Nietzsche-Studien (2013).Stefan Krebs, a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Technology and Society Studies at Maastricht University, is the author of Technikwissenschaft als soziale Praxis (Franz Steiner Verlag, 2008) and, with Karin Bijsterveld, Eefje Cleophas, and Gijs Mom, of Sound and Safe: A History of Listening Behind the Wheel (Oxford University Press, 2014).Kenton Kroker has published on the history of sleep research, experimental psychology, and clinical immunology. His current research project, Epidemic Futures, is a historical reconstruction of the encephalitis lethargica pandemics of the early twentieth century. He is an associate professor in the Department of Science and Technology Studies at York University in Toronto.Deepak Kumar teaches history of science and education at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi. During the last four decades he has researched and published a great deal on the history of science, technology, and medicine in the context of British India. He is also known for his book Science and the Raj (Oxford, 2nd ed., 2006).Thomas C. Lassman is curator of the post–World War II rocket and missile collection at the National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution. His research interests focus on the history of U.S. industrial and military research and development and the history of weapon systems acquisition in the Department of Defense.Christoph Lehner works on history and philosophy of modern physics, especially quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. He is a research scholar at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin and the coordinator of the project “History and Foundations of Quantum Physics.”David Leith is an Advanced Research Fellow in the Department of Classics and Ancient History at the University of Exeter. His main research interests lie in Greco-Roman medicine, in particular its relations to ancient philosophy.Thomas Lessl is Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Georgia. He is the author of Rhetorical Darwinism: Evolution, Religion, and the Scientific Identity (Baylor University Press, 2012).Mark Madison is Adjunct Professor at Shepherd University and the Chief Historian for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the National Conservation Training Center Museum/Archives.Anna Maerker is Senior Lecturer in History of Medicine at King's College, London. She works on the relationship between expertise and material culture in medicine and science and is the author of Model Experts: Wax Anatomies and Enlightenment in Florence and Vienna, 1775–1815 (2013).Jaume Navarro is Ikerbasque Research Professor at the University of the Basque Country. He is the author, among other works, of A History of the Electron: J. J. and G. P. Thomson (Cambridge, 2012) and coeditor of Research and Pedagogy: A History of Quantum Physics through Its Textbooks (Berlin, 2013).Vivian Nutton is Emeritus Professor of the History of Medicine at University College, London, and a Fellow of the British Academy. His recent publications include a revision of his Ancient Medicine (2013), the first English translation and commentary on Galen's Avoiding Distress (2013), and the historical introduction to the 2013 Karger translation of Vesalius's The Fabric of the Human Body.Mary Jo Nye is Professor of History Emerita at Oregon State University in Corvallis. Her most recent book is Michael Polanyi and His Generation: Origins of the Social Construction of Science (University of Chicago Press, 2011). Her current research focuses on patterns of collaboration in twentieth-century chemical sciences.Giuliano Pancaldi is Professor of the History of Science at the University of Bologna. He is the author of Darwin in Italy (Indiana, 1991) and Volta (Princeton, 2003). He is now working on a study of the connections between the life sciences and the demographic transition circa 1900.Leigh Penman is a postdoctoral fellow at the Centre for the History of European Discourses at the University of Queensland. He is the author of Unanticipated Millenniums: Chiliastic Thought in Post-Reformation Lutheranism (Springer, forthcoming) and numerous articles in the areas of early modern religious and intellectual history.Michael Pettit is Associate Professor of Psychology and Science and Technology Studies at York University. His first book is The Science of Deception: Psychology and Commerce in America (University of Chicago Press, 2013). He studies the history of psychology's research methods and ethics, the relationship between scientists and subject populations, the interface between psychology and public policy, and the circulation of psychology in the public sphere.Patricia Princehouse is a member of the Department of History and Director of the Program in Evolutionary Biology, Institute for the Science of Origins, Case Western Reserve University.Monica Saavedra is a research fellow at the Centre for Global Health Histories, University of York. She has worked in the fields of medical anthropology and the history of medicine and has published about vaccination and malaria in former Portuguese India and Portugal.C. F. Salazar, previously the Editor-in-Chief of Brill's New Pauly, is a research associate at both the University of Newcastle upon Tyne and the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, working on translations of works by Galen and Aetius of Amida, respectively.George Saliba is Professor of Arabic and Islamic Science at Columbia University and studies the development of scientific ideas from late antiquity to early modern times. His most recent book is Islamic Science and the Making of the European Renaissance (MIT Press, 2007; paperback, 2011).Darya Serykh is a Ph.D. student in Social and Political Thought at York University. Her current research focuses on the production of queer discourses in the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.Megan K. Sethi is an adjunct professor at Southern New Hampshire University. Her work examines the educational activities of scientists who promoted nuclear arms control during the early Cold War era. She participated in the Wilson Center's SHAFR Summer Institute on the International History of Nuclear Weapons in 2013.Michael H. Shank is Professor of the History of Science at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He is the coeditor, with David Lindberg, of the Cambridge History of Science, Volume 2: Medieval Science (2013).Elise Juzda Smith has written on the history of craniology, anthropometry, and scientific racism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. She is currently a Teaching and Research Fellow in the History of Medicine at the University of Oxford.Richard Staley lectures in the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Cambridge. He is the author of Einstein's Generation and the Relativity Revolution (Chicago, 2008), and his current research explores physics and anthropology.Heiko Stoff is Guest Professor for the History of Science and Technology at the Technical University of Braunschweig. He has published on the history of rejuvenation (Ewige Jugend: Konzepte der Verjüngung vom späten 19. Jahrhundert bis ins Dritte Reich [Böhlau, 2004]) and the history of biologically active substances (Wirkstoffe: Eine Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Hormone, Vitamine und Enzyme, 1920–1970 [Stuttgart, 2012]). He is the editor, with Alexander von Schwerin and Bettina Wahrig, of Biologics: A History of Agents Made from Living Organisms in the Twentieth Century (Pickering & Chatto, 2013).Liba Taub is Director and Curator of the Whipple Museum of the History of Science and Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Cambridge. Her publications include Aetna and the Moon: Explaining Nature in Ancient Greece and Rome, Ancient Meteorology, and Ptolemy's Universe: The Natural Philosophical and Ethical Foundations of Ptolemy's Astronomy.Jetze Touber is a postdoctoral researcher at Utrecht University. His Ph.D. dissertation, on the cult of the saints and law, medicine, and in Rome, has recently been published by His research interests include in the Dutch and and in the of is Associate Professor of History and Sociology of Science at the University of and the author of The Science and Technology is Emeritus Professor of History at the University of New and the author of in The of American and the of the and Conservation in America (University of Chicago is Research Group at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin. His research focuses on the history of ancient and early modern mechanics and on the between practical and knowledge in the history of a historian of ancient and medieval Islamic and is coordinator of at University and of the Canadian Society for History and Philosophy of He is author of The Mathematics of the Heavens and the Earth: The Early History of (Princeton, 2009) and The Art of (Princeton, is Senior Lecturer in the History of Science in the Department of History at University. His research focuses on the early modern between and He has published on the history of and astronomy and is now preparing work on early modern and on the of A. is an assistant professor of history at University and teaches in the industrial archaeology graduate program His work is between early modern and and the history of nineteenth-century American military technology and the that J. is an assistant professor of history at The University of the and the author of The as Scientific and in the Early Enlightenment (Chicago, An early who specializes in the history of science, she has published widely on and and education in the first half of the eighteenth century. She is working on a project about the history of the in early modern is Assistant Professor of History of Art at State University. He is a in medieval and the history of His first book, de and the Medieval in from the Institute in is Research Fellow in the Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of and Research Associate at King's College, Cambridge. Her current research project focuses on the of culture, medicine, and the role of in science, Previous article by Volume of the History of Science Society on by The History of Science articles

Reviewed by: Heteronormativity in Eighteenth-Century Literature and Culture ed. by Ana de Freitas Boe and Abby Coykendall Caroline Gonda Ana de Freitas Boe and Abby Coykendall, eds., Heteronormativity in Eighteenth-Century Literature and Culture (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2014). Pp. 219. £60.00. “Remember: As far as anyone knows we’re a nice normal family.” Doubtless hilarious to some, the bumper stickers and wall plaques on eBay are not so funny to the queer children excluded, silenced, or sacrificed in order to preserve the so-called normal family’s image of itself. It’s in the nature of ideology that those processes of exclusion, silencing, and sacrifice are so often themselves invisible or denied. The appearance of obviousness, naturalness, this-is-just-how-things-are, is what gives particular forms of being their power to control—or, at their most extreme, to destroy—the lives of others. In a world where, as the Scottish lesbian novelist Iona Macgregor says, “the dominant class never sees its own boundaries,” the work of a collection such as Heteronormativity in Eighteenth-Century Literature and Culture is an important intervention, making critically visible both “the heteronormative legacy of the eighteenth century as a historical period” and the continuing presence of heteronormativity in eighteenth-century studies. As the editors note, the chapters in this volume “set out to reconfigure our sense of how gender and sexuality have become mapped onto space; how public and private have been carved up, and gendered and sexual bodies socially sanctioned; and how narrative conventions have been put in the service of affirming or subverting cultural orthodoxies about sex, gender, and sexuality. They also spotlight the literary traditions, scholarly criticisms, and pedagogical practices that buttress or subvert heteronormativity both in the past and in the present” (15). Whether or not one subscribes to Karma Lochrie’s argument in Heterosyncrasies: Female Sexuality When Normal Wasn’t (2005)—that only the emergence of statistics as a science in the late eighteenth century makes it possible to speak meaningfully about norms and the normal (including in sexuality)—this collection makes the case for the eighteenth century as a crucial period in the formation of heteronormativity. By the end of the century, the editors argue, heteronormativity “congeals into a fully fomented hegemony,” although “alternate sex/gender configurations” continue to materialize (14–15). The chapters here explore heteronormativity across a wide range of areas and subjects: for example, the history of shopping and its impact on the sexual geography of the city (O’Driscoll); changes in French wedding-night customs (Roulston); the use of heteroerotic pornography as an element in male homosocial bonding (Kavanagh); moral panic, sexual assault, and protective masculinity in late eighteenth-century London (Braunschneider); Gothic fiction’s resistance to heteronormative closure (Haggerty); and the racial and sexual politics of colonialism (de Freitas Boe). In addition to Coykendall’s chapter on the critical and historical reception of Gray and Walpole, the two chapters that frame the volume address themselves to eighteenth-century studies, examining the workings of heteronormativity in scholarly research (Lanser) and the pedagogic practices and new readings of texts that result from attending to transgender issues in the classroom (Saxton, Mance, and Edwards). As powerful and pervasive a force as heteronormativity becomes, it is not monolithic, but is enmeshed with other structures of power. Ana de Freitas Boe’s [End Page 427] chapter on John Gabriel Stedman’s Narrative of a Five Years Expedition against the Revolted Negroes of Surinam (1790) makes this particularly clear: “Stedman’s depiction of the erotic life of the colony forces us to reconsider how concerns about race and miscegenation shaped emergent heteronormative conceptions of sexuality in the eighteenth century. The monogamous couple—and monogamy as a concept—looks different from the vantage point of the colonial periphery” (165). Questions of class as well as of race are important in this volume, as seen particularly in Sally O’Driscoll’s chapter “Conjugal Capitalism,” which focuses on the figure of the domestic woman as “mulier mercans,” defined no longer by her sexual desires but by the fetishistic transfer of those desires onto material goods and purchasable commodities. The city in which she wanders is transformed, gentrified by the...

During the past year, exploration of the deep ocean floor through scientific ocean drilling has yielded important results with respect to evolution of ocean crust and continental margins and paleoceanography. This paper describes the Ocean Drilling Program's (ODP's) scientific and technical achievements during its ninth year of field operations and discusses areas of future study.