Considerations Regarding the History of Science Transfer: Background and Method

Document Type : Research/Original/Reqular Article

Author

Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Zweigbibliothek Vorderer Orient Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg

Abstract

The transfer of science was accelerated with the spread of European colonialism and its efforts to conquer and rule other parts of the world. Until the eighties of the twentieth century the historiography of science was focused on the spearhead of scientific activity and too little research was done on social and economic factors influencing the production of science. Since then, however, historians of science have turned their attention to social, political, institutional and economic factors, thereby bringing to light important aspects of this branch of human activity. Two factors, more than others, are responsible for this turn: Thomas Kuhn’s model of science and Edward Said’s critique of Orientalism. In the first part of this paper the transfer of science will be looked at and the models by George Basalla and Joseph Needham will be discussed. In part two Kuhn’s observations and Said’s Orientalism critique together with Chakrabarty’s contribution to the historiography of science transfer will be discussed. Finally some aspects of the historiography of science transfer and its methodology will be presented along with an appraisal of a critique pertaining to the historiography of modern science in Iran

Keywords

References

آدمیت، فریدون. (1351ش). اندیشۀ ترقی و حکومت قانون. تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشارات خوارزمی.
امیرارجمند، کامران. (1391ش). «ظهور مدرنیتۀ علمی در ایران». ترجمۀ افسانه منفرد. میراث علمی اسلام و ایران، سال اول، شمارۀ دوم. ص48-68.
ــــــــــــ . (1395ش). «ملاحظاتی در بارۀ کتاب آیات بینات و رویارویی با داروینیسم». میراث علمی اسلام و ایران، سال پنجم، شمارۀ اول. ص39-51.
هبةالدین شهرستانی. (1342ش). اسلام و هیئت. ترجمۀ اسماعیل فردوس فرهانی و دیگران. تبریز.
Alfons, G. (1952). Die Erforschung Persiens. Wien.
Basalla, G. (1967). “The Spread of Western Science”. Science, vol. 156. pp. 611-622.
Cohn, B.S. (1996). Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge. Princeton.
Finn, C. (2011). Science Studies as Naturalized Philosophy. Drodrecht.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago.
Niedham, J. (1970). “The Roles of Europe and China in the Evolution of Ecmenical Science”. in Needham, Clerks and Craftsmen in China and the West. Cambridge. pp. 396-418.
ـــــــــــــــ . (1969). The Grand Titration. Science and Society in East and West. London.
Osterhammel, J. (2001). Geisteswissenschaft jenseits des Nationalstaats. Göttingen.
Petitjean, P. (2005). “Science and the “Civilizing Misson”: Frannce and the Colonial Enterprise”. in Stuchtey, Benedikt ed. Science across the European Empires: 1800-1950. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Raj, K. (2007). Relocating Modern Science: Circulation and the Construction of knowledge in South Asia and Europe: 1650-1900. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rorty, R. (1979). Phiosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton.
Sadik al-Azm, J.(2000). “Orientalism and Orientalism in Reverse”. in Alexander Lyon Macfie (ed.) Orientalism: A Reader. New York.
Sandra, H. (1998). Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialism, Feminism, and Epistemologies. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana Uni Press.
Scholl, R. and Räz, T. “Towards a Methodology for Integrated History and Philosophy of Science”. in Sauer, Tilman and Scholl, Raphael (eds.), The Philosophy of Historical Case Studies. pp. 69-91.
Schwab, R. (1984). The Oriental Renaissance: Europe’s Discovery of India and the East: 1680-1880. New York.
Said, E. (1979). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.
Tavakoli-Targhi, M. (2001). Refashioning Iran: Orientalism, Occidentalism and Historiography. New York.
 
 
 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics