Wissenschaft — Mathematik — Technik: Ihre Wechselwirkung in der Antike

The question whether there exists an interaction between ‘science’ (foreign text ignored) and ‘technology’ (foreign text ignored, esp. foreign text ignored) in Greek and Roman antiquity is discussed controversially until today. Especially representatives of the philologies strictly deny any form of relation, whereas modern scientists tend to take for granted that the current interaction between (exact) natural sciences and technology has always existed, at least since the beginning of real natural science founded by the ancient Greeks. This paper shows that both parties are right — at least in a certain way. Following current terminology and contents of ‘science’ and ‘technology’ there had been such an interaction — particularly with mathematics as linking element in so far as in antiquity especially foreign text ignored (mechanics) was regarded as applied mathematics and not as science. The strong interaction between pure mathematics and such fields of applied mathematics (namely mechanical technology) based on the fact that technological (mechanical) artefacts were properly constructed mathematically. Some of them are mentioned in this paper (astrolabes and sundials, waterclocks, tools and machines — especially lifting gears, bucket elevators, guns, pneumatic tools —, architecture of temples); in so far the supporters of an interaction between science and technology are right. However, the post-Aristotelian Greeks and Romans did not consider mathematics to be part of ‘science (of nature)’ as the post-kantian exact scientists do. Mathematics to them was a mere ‘art’ — consequently, in the mentioned cases there had been an interaction between ‘arts’ and of course not between ‘science’ and ‘art’ (technology); and in so far those are right who deny an interaction between natural science and technology. This shows that the contrariety of the answers to the question depends on the different terminology chosen. Following the current understanding of ‘exact natural science’ the answer is: yes; following the conception of ‘science’ in the self-understanding of Greek and Roman antiquity the answer is: no — and this is right as well! The reason for this apparent contrariety are just the different meanings and contents of ‘science (of nature)’ in antiquity and modern times.     

Proselytizing Islam — Problematizing “Salafism”

This article discusses the contemporary European setting pertaining to Islamic interpretations, mainly so called Salafi Islam. The empirical material is based on publications by a Swedish group that conducts street da?wa, aiming to proselytize among non‐Muslims. The ideology, as presented in official publications to be used for da?wa, is described and analyzed as part of a larger da?wa‐movement with Salafi‐inclinations in Europe. The group is not unique, but rather one example of many in Europe, at least concerning the activism advocated. The presentation of the group serves to reflect upon global influences and similarities among contemporary Islamic da?wa activism, as well as effects that the national context has on the choice of predominant themes addressed by the group as well as interpretative strategies used. The overarching aim with the article is to problematize the common usage of the concept Salafi among scholars of religion to describe and characterize contemporary Islamic groups of various kinds. The conclusion calls for a more nuanced approach concerning conceptualizations and the use of typologies in studying contemporary Islamic groups in a minority setting.     

Charcoal analysis and the “Principle of least effort”—A conceptual model

The applicability of the Principle of Least Effort (PLE) to interpretations of palaeoclimatic data is considered, and found lacking in some instances. A conceptual model is presented to determine situations in which the PLE may, or may not, apply. This helps identify when the PLE may be a useful model for interpretation of appropriate data sets.     

Debating Belarus: A Framing Comment

A British political scientist and eminent specialist on the politics of the post-Soviet states comments on the divergent perspectives offered in the two preceding papers in the symposium on Belarus in the same issue of Eurasian Geography and Economics. He first briefly reviews the diverse approaches to the study of Belarus evident in the academic literature, and the reasons scholars might be led to the country as a topic of study, especially its suitability as a test bed for several issues of importance in comparative studies (e.g., the nature of presidential power and of political "charisma," of governance without political parties, and an economic model that has appeared until now to have resisted the path of accelerated market reform). Probing more deeply, the author identifies issues of the comparative method of particular relevance to the exchange that warrant further investigation, and goes on to present his own survey data (from early 2011 for Belarus and from 2010 in Ukraine and Russia) in an effort to advance the debate on these issues. In concluding, he suggests a line of further enquiry for understanding better the seeming paradox that is Belarus—the role played by retention of "Soviet" institutions (e.g., trade unions, local councils) that offer a means of communication between ordinary citizens and the authorities.