Conceptual Revolutions Research Articles

Space, Time and Man

Strikingly analogous problems of method and of approach have arisen in the recent writings of archaeologists and of geographers. Some of the similarities in the current debates within the two disciplines are here reviewed. The very nature of the data base establishes an overlap between archaeology and physical geography, and to a large extent conditions archaeology (and perhaps more of geography than is currently accepted) to be a fundamentally empiricist or 'positivist' discipline rather than an idealist one. It is argued, by means of an example from archaeology, that in the current debates about 'paradigms' we all risk missing the point. For it is problems, not paradigms, which should determine the direction of our research. Suggestions are then made, arising from archaeological experience, that some problems in political geography may be treated more coherently by considering the exercise of power and dominance in strictly spatial terms, thus allowing quantitative treatment. In conclusion some remarks are offered, arising from the archaeologist's experience in reconstructing past cognitive systems, about the idealist methodology of 'stepping into other people's shoes', which does not seem a sure-footed research strategy. The outstanding successes of geography in recent years have been in what is broadly an empiricist or positivist tradition. The case for widening that tradition by laying more emphasis on human thought and behaviour seems, to an outsider from a neighbouring discipline, a good one. To abandon it, in response to idealist and subjectivist polemic, can only be counter-productive. Geography, over the past twenty years, has been far and away the most successful, the most methodical and the most hard-headed of the social sciences. At least, that is how the matter looks to an archaeologist. So that when your President did me the honour of inviting me to address the Institute, I felt much gratified at the opportunity. Archaeology has learnt from geography, certainly, but has geography anything to learn from archaeology? I am well aware that the archaeologist is widely seen as a man who digs, often a rather uncouth person with mud on his boots, and a strange collection of rubbish in his finds boxes. This can be seen as romantic-ancient civilizations and buried treasure-the counterpart in the public eye of the geographer as explorer miraculously traversing impenetrable jungles, the world of the unending safari. Alternatively he is dull, classifying with infinite precision the trivial relics of ages best forgotten. But the archaeologist also thinks, or tries to. And we too have had our conceptual revolutions: not so long ago there was a New Archaeology as well as a New Geography. And it may be that some of our intellectual experiences could be a source of interest, or at least of amusement to the geographer. For, despite a few methodological borrowings, contemporary archaeology is no mirror of modern geography, and the developments in the two disciplines have been largely independent. It is this which makes their parallels so intriguing: the appeal to hypothetico-deductive explanation, the emphasis on quantification, the apotheosis of systems, the widespread apostasy from systems, the impact of neo-Marxism, the influence of structuralism, the risk of retreat to 'hermeneutic' subjectivity. For archaeology too has been undergoing some breast-beating of its own about the nonexistence of laws, and may yet succumb to the subjective, and perhaps sometimes escapist, charms of an idealist approach. Indeed we can claim to go further in our reaction against materialist positivism for do we not, on our fringes, have the exponents of Other Archaeology, with their ley lines, their flying saucers and their good vibrations---diversions of a kind which I imagine geography has escaped since the days of Immanuel Velikovsky? Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. N.S. 6, 257-78 (1981) Printed in Great Britain This content downloaded from 157.55.39.196 on Sat, 24 Sep 2016 04:14:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Einstein's impact on theoretical physics

There occurred in the early years of this century three conceptual revolutions that profoundly changed Man's understanding of the physical universe: the special theory of relativity (in 1905), the general theory of relativity (1915) and quantum mechanics (1925). Einstein personally was responsible for the first two of these revolutions, and influenced and helped to shape the third. But it is not about his work in these conceptual revolutions that I shall write here. Much has been written about that work already. Instead, I shall discuss, in general terms, Einstein's insights on the structure of theoretical physics and their relevance to the development of physics in the second half of this century. I shall divide the discussion into four sections which are, of course, very much related.

Conceptual revolutions and geological education

Conceptual revolutions and geological education

The Mormon Genealogical Society and Research Opportunities in Early American History

T t HE study of American history has experienced conceptual and methodological revolutions in recent years. Scholars in increasing numbers are combining statistical computation with traditional literary sources to effect more comprehensive historical portraits; important work is going forward in such areas as demography, prosopography, and family reconstitution. Since the method often determines the message, there has been a trend toward microcosmic analysis; close examinations of towns, counties, and kinship groups have appreciably altered our perspectives on cultural life, social structure, wealth distribution, and political activity. As readers of this journal are well aware, some of the earliest and finest community and family studies have been done in the field of early American history. Practitioners of the new social history face special difficulties in research. The vital statistics, court records, deeds, local government registers, and like sources are voluminous. But these records often repose in distant courthouses, town halls, and churches, and their volume presents problems in systematically collecting and recording information. Fortunately, twentieth-century technology offers invaluable assistance to students of seventeenthand eighteenth-century America. Even more important than the computer, which facilitates the tedious task of collating and counting data, are the photoduplication processes that bring the resources to the researcher. Richard W. Hale's Guide to Photocopied Historical Materials in the United States and Canada indicates that the largest collection of microfilmed material for the study of early American history is that of the Genealogical Society of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints (Mormon) in Salt Lake City, Utah. The purpose of this communication is to acquaint readers of the Quarterly with the holdings of the Genealogical Society Library and to suggest means of utilizing the collection in historical research.

The background to Otto Warburg's conception of the Atmungsferment.

In the 1930s Warburg's spare prose and disciplined respect for the facts set the style for a new generation of biochemists who had not known the conceptual revolutions of earlier years. Led by Warburg, they rejected the excesses of the colloid school and the false starts of the teens and twenties. Talk of active structure virtually disappeared as chemists began to identify enzymes, coenzymes, vitamins, and hormones. In the gradual transformation of the Atmungsferment from an ironcolloid complex to a specific haem-protein, the roots of Warburg's inspiration were readily forgotten-the richer and more varied intellectual currents of the early decades of biochemistry. Experimental cytology and pharmacology were important strands. Most of what Warburg was doing on narcosis from 1908 to 1912 was typical of this school. He was deeply influenced by Loeb and his theory of the fertilization membrane. In the period from 1900 to 1914 the ups and down of belief in Hofmeister's enzyme theory was an important trend which helped determine the style of biochemistry in later decades. Warburg's conception of the Atmungsferment was shaped by the general reaction c. 1910 against Buchner's optimistic view. Warburg's Heidelberg lecture was framed as an answer to Hofmeister's lecture of 1901 and turned out almost as an imitation or second edition of it. It was a style that was soon out of fashion. The affinity between the early concept of enzymes and the old concept idea of “living protein” should not be neglected in discussions of Warburg's distaste for “enzymology.” The colloid school is too easily dismissed as a mere impediment to the chemical triumphs of the 1930s. Warburg's Atmungsferment was obviously colored by the colloidal cast of biochemical thought in 1912. The Atmungsferment represented, in short, a hybrid transition from the romantic biochemistry of the period 1900–1925 to the mature, classical of the 1930s. It is fascinating precisely because it reflects, and refracts through a unique and powerful mind, the varied local traditions of the early history of modern biochemistry.

Conceptual revolutions in science

Conceptual revolutions in science

Comment on Stephen Toulmin's ?conceptual revolutions in science?

Comment on Stephen Toulmin's ?conceptual revolutions in science?