Goethe and Candolle: National forms of scientific writing?

IF 1.3 4区 生物学 Q3 BIOLOGY Theory in Biosciences Pub Date : 2022-09-01 Epub Date: 2022-08-11 DOI:10.1007/s12064-022-00376-8
Agatha Seo-Hyun Kim, Andrew McNutt
{"title":"Goethe and Candolle: National forms of scientific writing?","authors":"Agatha Seo-Hyun Kim,&nbsp;Andrew McNutt","doi":"10.1007/s12064-022-00376-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>What role does nationality-or the image of a nation-play in how one thinks and receives scientific ideas? This paper investigates the commonly held ideas about \"German science\" and \"French science\" in early nineteenth-century France. During the politically turbulent time, the seemingly independent scientific community found itself in a difficult position: first, between the cosmopolitan ideals of scientific community and the invasive political reality, and second, between the popularized image of national differences and the actual comparisons of international scientific ideas. The tension between multiple sets of fictions and realities underscores the fragility of the concept of nationality as a scientific measure. A case study comparing morphological ideas, receptions in France, and the actual scientific texts of J. W. von Goethe and A. P. de Candolle further illustrates this fragility. Goethe and Candolle make an ideal comparative case because they were received in very different lights despite their similar concept of the plant type. Our sentence-classification and visualization methods are applied to their scientific texts, to compare the actual compositions and forms of the texts that purportedly represented German and French sciences. This paper concludes that there was a gap between what French readers assumed they read and what they really read, when it came to foreign scientific texts. The differences between Goethe's and Candolle's texts transcended the perceived national differences between German Romanticism and French Classicism.</p>","PeriodicalId":54428,"journal":{"name":"Theory in Biosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory in Biosciences","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-022-00376-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

What role does nationality-or the image of a nation-play in how one thinks and receives scientific ideas? This paper investigates the commonly held ideas about "German science" and "French science" in early nineteenth-century France. During the politically turbulent time, the seemingly independent scientific community found itself in a difficult position: first, between the cosmopolitan ideals of scientific community and the invasive political reality, and second, between the popularized image of national differences and the actual comparisons of international scientific ideas. The tension between multiple sets of fictions and realities underscores the fragility of the concept of nationality as a scientific measure. A case study comparing morphological ideas, receptions in France, and the actual scientific texts of J. W. von Goethe and A. P. de Candolle further illustrates this fragility. Goethe and Candolle make an ideal comparative case because they were received in very different lights despite their similar concept of the plant type. Our sentence-classification and visualization methods are applied to their scientific texts, to compare the actual compositions and forms of the texts that purportedly represented German and French sciences. This paper concludes that there was a gap between what French readers assumed they read and what they really read, when it came to foreign scientific texts. The differences between Goethe's and Candolle's texts transcended the perceived national differences between German Romanticism and French Classicism.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
歌德与坎多尔:科学写作的民族形式?
国籍——或者一个国家的形象——在一个人如何思考和接受科学思想方面起着什么作用?本文考察了19世纪初法国对“德国科学”和“法国科学”的普遍看法。在政治动荡时期,看似独立的科学界发现自己陷入了困境:首先,在科学界的世界主义理想与侵入性的政治现实之间,其次,在国家差异的流行形象与国际科学思想的实际比较之间。多种虚构与现实之间的紧张关系凸显了国籍概念作为一种科学衡量标准的脆弱性。一个比较形态学思想的案例研究,在法国的接受,以及j·w·冯·歌德和A·p·德·坎多勒的实际科学文本进一步说明了这种脆弱性。歌德和坎多尔是一个理想的比较案例,因为尽管他们对植物类型的概念相似,但他们受到的影响却截然不同。我们的句子分类和可视化方法应用于他们的科学文本,以比较据称代表德国和法国科学的文本的实际组成和形式。这篇论文的结论是,当涉及到外国科学文本时,法国读者认为他们读的和他们真正读的之间存在差距。歌德和坎多勒文本之间的差异超越了德国浪漫主义和法国古典主义之间的民族差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Theory in Biosciences
Theory in Biosciences 生物-生物学
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
21
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Theory in Biosciences focuses on new concepts in theoretical biology. It also includes analytical and modelling approaches as well as philosophical and historical issues. Central topics are: Artificial Life; Bioinformatics with a focus on novel methods, phenomena, and interpretations; Bioinspired Modeling; Complexity, Robustness, and Resilience; Embodied Cognition; Evolutionary Biology; Evo-Devo; Game Theoretic Modeling; Genetics; History of Biology; Language Evolution; Mathematical Biology; Origin of Life; Philosophy of Biology; Population Biology; Systems Biology; Theoretical Ecology; Theoretical Molecular Biology; Theoretical Neuroscience & Cognition.
期刊最新文献
Clustering systems of phylogenetic networks. MLACNN: an attention mechanism-based CNN architecture for predicting genome-wide DNA methylation. A biosemiotic interpretation of certain genital morphological structures in the spiders Dysdera erythrina and Dysdera crocata (Araneae: Dysderidae). On a population model with density dependence and Allee effect. Matrix stability and bifurcation analysis by a network-based approach.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1