در بارۀ دو رویکرد اساسی در تاریخ‌نگاری ریاضیات

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

پژوهشکده تاریخ علم دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

تاریخ‌نگاری ریاضیات در سال‌های اخیر متحول شده است و رویکرد پیشین که منجر به نگارش کتاب‌های تأثیرگذاری در تاریخ ریاضی بود از اعتبارش کاسته شده است. نسل جدید مورخان ریاضیات یا حداقل گروهی از آنها دیگر آن رویکرد را مناسب نمی‌دانند. نگاه تازه به تاریخ ریاضی کاملاً متفاوت با رویکرد کلاسیک است و به واقعیات تاریخی، که در روش کلاسیک به آن توجه نمی‌شد، اهمیت می‌دهد. تفاوت میان این دو رویکرد که مبتنی بر مفروضات شناخت‌شناسانۀ متفاوت است به دو گونه تاریخ‌نگاری کاملاً مجزا منجر می‌شود. این شرایط باعث می‌شود که این دو نوع تاریخ‌نگاری در مقابل هم قرار بگیرند. در این مقاله می‌کوشیم تا هر یکی از این رویکردها، خصوصیات، مفروضات، نتایج و ریشه‌های آنها را معرفی کنیم و سرانجام رویکرد دیگری پیشنهاد کنیم که از تقابل میان این دو نوع تاریخ‌نگاری می‌کاهد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

On the Two Major Approaches in Historiography of Mathematics

نویسنده [English]

  • Hassan Amini
Institute for History of Science University of Tehran
چکیده [English]

The Historiography of Mathematics has undergone a radical change in recent years, and the previous approach, which already has led to the writing of influential books in History of Mathematics is no longer considered as appropriate by a new generation of historians of mathematics, or at least some of them. The new perspective on History of Mathematics is completely different from the previous point of view, and considers as important historical facts which, in the eye of old historians, seemed to be inessential. The difference between these two views, which is based on different epistemological assumptions, leads to two completely distinct positions in Historiography of Mathematics. This situation sets the two traditions against each other. In this article, each one of these two different tradition, their features, assumptions, and results will be introduced, then the roots of the opposition between them will be discussed, and finally I will try to introduce a new approach in Historiography of Mathematics that tends to reduce the tension between them.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Geometric algebra
  • Historiography of science
  • History of mathematics
  • historiography of mathematics
Barker, A. (2004). Greek Musical Writings: Harmonic and Acoustic Theory. Cambridge University Press.

Berggren, J.L. (1984). “History of Greek Mathematics: A.Survey of Recent Research”, Historia Mathematica 11, pp. 394-410.

Casanova, Pascale. (2005). “Literature as a World.” New Left Review 31.

Chasles, M. (1837). Aperçu historique sur l'origine et le développement des méthodes en géométrie, originally published by Hayez in Bruxelles.

Comte, Auguste. (1851). Système de politique positive: ou traité de sociologie instituant la religion de l'Humanité. E. Thunot.

Fowler. (1979). “Ratio in Early Greek Mathematics.” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, Vol. 1 No. 6. pp. 807-846.

Freudenthal, H. (1977). “What is Algebra and What has it been in History?” Archive for history of exact sciences, 16(3). pp. 189-200.

Heath, Thomas Little, ed. (1956). The thirteen books of Euclid's Elements. Courier Corporation.

Hessen. Boris. (1931). “The Social and Economic Roots of Newton's Principia”, in: Nicolai I. Bukharin, Science at the Crossroads. London. (Reprinted in 1971, New York), pp. 151–212.

Høyrup, J. (2017). “What is “geometric algebra”, and what has it been in historiography?” AIMS Mathematics, 2(1). pp. 128-160.

Kuhn, T. (1977). The Essential Tension, The Univ. of Chicago Press.

Knorr, W.R (1986). Ancient Tradition of Geometric Problems, Birkhauser. (Repriented in 1993).

Mahoney, M.S. (1973). The Mathematical Career of Pierre de FERMAT, Princeton Univ. Press.

Mueller, I. (1981). Philosophy of Mathematics and Deductive Structure in Euclid's Elements. The M.I.T. Press.

Szabo, A. (1977). “Zum Problem der sogenaunten Geometrischen Algebra in Euklids Elementen” in Y. Maeyama und W.G. Seltzer (Hers): 11PIIMATA. Naturwissenschafs-geschichtliche Studien. Franz Steiner Verlag GmbH. pp. 373-393.

Unguru, S. (1974). “On the need to rewrite the history of Greek Mathematics.” Proceedings of XIVth International Congress of the History of Science. Science Council of Japan, No 2, 1974. Also: Unguru, S. “On the need to rewrite the history of Greek mathematics.” Archive for history of exact sciences 15(1). pp. 67-114.

ـــــــــــــــــــــ . (1979). “History of Ancient Mathematics: Some Reflections on the State of the Art.” ISIS, 70 (No 254). pp. 555-565.

Unguru, S., D.E. Rowe. “Does the quadratic equation have Greek roots? A Study on “Geometric Algebra.” and “Application of Areas” and related problems.” Libertas Mathematica, 1, 1981 pp. 1-49 and 2, 1982 pp. 1-62.

Waerden, B. L. van der. (1985). A history of algebra: From al-Khwarizmı to Emmy Noether.

ـــــــــــــــــــــ . (1976). “Defence of a “shocking” point of view.” Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 15(3). pp. 199-210.

ـــــــــــــــــــــ . (1983). Geometry and Algebra in Ancient Civilizations. Springer.

Weil, André. (1978). “Who betrayed Euclid? (Extract from a letter to the editor).” Archive for History of Exact Sciences. 19(2). pp. 91-93.

Zeuthen, H. G. (1886). Die Lehre von den Kegelschnitten im Altertum. København: Höst & Sohn.