Historiography

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0 height="100%"><tr> <td valign="top" width=200 BGCOLOR="#003333" TEXT="#F7F7FF" background="03cd4c00dduajq.gif"> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> <A HREF="future_category.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Views"><U>Views</U></A></div> <div> <IMG SRC="09ba2f20.jpg" border=0 width="162" height="242" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <div> <IMG SRC="09da2ed0.jpg" border=0 width="162" height="237" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> </td> <td valign="top" BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <B>Mental (Building) Blocks</B><FONT SIZE="6" COLOR="#333399" FACE="Arial" >  </FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#333399" FACE="Arial" >  |      </FONT><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#333399" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Mental Blocks"><U><B>home</B></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <B>Historiography</B><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id13.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Glossary"><U>Glossary</U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id14.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Possible subject 3"><U>Possible subject 3</U></A></div> <div> Copyright: © 2001, 2002 Emile van Kreveld (kreveld@wxs.nl), all rights reserved. Unaltered copies of this computer text file may be freely distributed for personal and classroom use. Alterations to this file are permitted only for purposes of computer printouts, although altered computer text files may not circulate. Except to cover nominal distribution costs, this file cannot be sold without written permission from the copyright holder. This copyright notice supersedes all previous notices on earlier versions of this text file. When quoting from this text, please use the following citation: "Tripartitianism in the historiography of science" , M.E. van Kreveld (Internet Release, 2002). </div> <div> This is a working draft. I would be grateful if you will report errors to Emile van Kreveld: <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#3300FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="mailto:kreveld@wxs.nl " TARGET="_top" TITLE="mailto:kreveld@wxs.nl "><U>kreveld@wxs.nl.</U></A></FONT></div> <bR> <div> <B>Historiography</B></div> <bR> <div> Tripartitianism in the historiography of science</div> <div> (Version 18-03-2002, © M.E. van Kreveld)</div> <bR> <div> No doubt my choice in historiography is strongly biased by my physics background. I see any social process as an interaction mechanism that generates an output from the input. The present social interactions shape the future from the circumstances generated by the past. Consequently, to fit in this picture, I have to consider culture, which I regard as a particular selection (a subset) from the many human social processes, as an input. Therefore I am obliged to choose the operational definition of Edgar H. Schein for culture: “That's the way we do things here”. Social processes are made up of a large number of “players” and an even larger number of “rules of the game”. From this I conclude that nothing can be learned in a complex system from a stable situation. But obvious discrepancies with the “normal” situation give us a chance (but not the guarantee!) to discover factors that take an active part in social processes. For science I consider the “Hungarian phenomenon” and the “over”-participation of Jews as two of such promising discrepancies.</div> <div> In general I recognize three categories of questions: about 1. <B>Purpose</B>, 2. <B>Essence</B> and 3. <B>Operation</B> (to the neglect of the 4th category: silly questions). For example: 1. What is the meaning of gravity in the universe?, 2. What is gravity?, 3. How does it work? In my view only the questions from the third category can possibly be answered within the domain of science. As for any science, also history cannot answer operational questions without hypothising a model. In the above I explained my choice. </div> <div> Now let's turn our attention to the history of the production of scientists, viewed as a societal process. The generation of a scientist requires the preparation of a mind, by “installing” an amount of knowledge (starting mental material) and behavioral features, before it can produce new knowledge under its own steam. No masterpieces can be invented (not even by a genius) starting from square one. First raw mental materials must be acquired, no matter whether by the push of the formal and informal education or by the pull of his/her personal intelligence and motivation. Three sources are to be considered: <B>Parents, Formal education, </B>and <B>Complementary part of the environment</B> (friends, clubs, unions, café, media, etc….)</div> <div> In the production of science and scientists at least three different processes are involved: <B>Personal striving, social interactions </B>and<B> </B>the<B> internal dynamics of science</B>. </div> <bR> <div> Hungary case in retrospect</div> <div> Many correlations can be found but very few give a clue about cause-effect relations. For example the café culture of Budapest is strongly correlated with the Hungarian scientific success, but is it also a cause-effect relation? Is it a critical factor in the process of shaping scientists? There is also a correlation with chemistry detected. But again is it a cause-effect relation? The considerable percentage of scientists that entered the field of the natural sciences via chemistry can also be explained by a quantitative argument. All through my own student days the ratio between the number of chemistry and physics students was still between 3:1 and 4:1 at the various universities in the Netherlands. In the beginning of the 20th century the major part of science in Germany was chemistry, of course directly related with the number of available job positions in industry. So starting via chemistry was an obvious choice.   </div> <bR> <div> It is the total process that is unique for each particular social phenomenon, not the particular characteristics of the various components. The marvel of a production machine cannot be explained by the description of the various toothed wheels, the pinions, or the nuts and bolts, but only by the way they are assembled. </div> <bR> <div> Maybe the above explains my view on the Hungarian Phenomenon (the process = the production machine delivering so many Hungarians in front-rank science positions in the US) that I consider indeed as a unique phenomenon.</div> <div> Here we go with my view on the total process: </div> <div> 1. Emancipation of Jews during the 19th century ending with contributing about 40-50% of the Hungarian intelligentsia. Therefore I conjecture an influence of Jewish culture on the intelligentsia. Three cultural factors can be put forward as candidate: having respect for learning, personal dedication and awareness that top performance is the only way for a member of a (minority) group to obtain social status. Values that were still respected after secularization.  </div> <div> 2. A structured policy (triggered by industrialization) to implement a good school system. </div> <div> 3. Intelligentsia sending their children to “better” schools and after graduation to “better” universities (in those days in Germany, that happened to be the forefront of science), </div> <div> 4. Next the political change that drove them (and many others!) to the US. So by the European politics the US became the leading country in science. </div> <bR> <div> Evidently along this route many Hungarians could end up in a position to play first fiddle in many positions in their new home country. But it was not only a matter of driving forces and capabilities as are suggested above. Of equal importance were the opportunities, the open niches in society that could be filled at that particular moment in history.</div> <bR> <div> “Jews as preferred suppliers?” in retrospect</div> <div> Here we observe the emancipation of a minority by the interplay between politics, demography, economy, education and the progress of science. Such processes can never be repeated. Devising a theoretical description of such complex phenomena still requires tests to reduce the infinite number of hypotheses that one can dream up. In any case internal consistency, fulfillment of Occam's Razor, and consistency with all adjoining knowledge is always required. Therefore history needs to be revised as often as crucial new knowledge becomes available. </div> <bR> <div> Afterthoughts</div> <div> As you can see I do not consider one of all the mentioned factors separately as an explanation nor even the total collection of them, but their mutual timing and the manner in which they interact to produce the overall effect. Cultural features, personal characteristics, formal education and political changes contributed all to the observed historical phenomenon. One is not more important than the other. Besides these factors belong to very different categories: some are input parameters, others are interactions or only boundary conditions. They compose together the “machine” of the observable social effect.</div> <div> I hope that the above exposition can convince the reader that I don't try to explain neither the “Hungarian Phenomenon” nor the “Jewish Phenomenon” by a single factor.</div> <bR> <div> The trend of political history is not “explained” till it can be traced back to the driving forces <B>ambition</B>, <B>vanity</B>, and <B>distress</B>. Realities as well as misinformation (leading to mystification) are both capable of mobilizing these three inner urges. There are many mutual interactions in a society that have no direction in it, they can go either way, but the direction derives from the three driving forces. If ambition and/or vanity are not materialized, frustration is often the result. This frustration discharges itself into envy, if the people in question can be identified, if not, the obvious course to go is to point to scapegoats. If identifiable targets are not available one has at least to invent culprits.</div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>