Beschriftete altsüdarabische Sockel, Stelen- und Grabstatuettenbasen und Steinplatten

Mit diesem Artikel folgt nun der fünfte Beitrag über die altsüdarabischen Inschriften auf Fotoaufnahmen aus dem Nachlaß des verstorbenen Professors Mahmūd al-Ghul. Beschrifteten Grabstatuettenbasen sowie Steinplatten werden bearbeitet und kommentiert.     

Vertrauensvorschuß und wissenschaftliches Fehlhandeln — Eine reliabilistische Modellierung der Fälle Abderhalden,Goldschmidt, Moewus und Waldschmidt‐Leitz

Reliabilist philosophy of science considers scientific misconduct a transgression against the principles of good cognitive practice. Good practice in research is characterised by the reliability, efficiency and fertility of the cognitive processes involved. The reliabilist approach is closely connected to the idea of mutual cognitive dependency of the research community. Trust in the testimony of others is not an inevitable but a favouring factor of scientific progress — and misconduct damages the testimonial chain, respectively the principle of trustworthiness. Within the reliabilist framework, the main focus on questionable research is not on whether or not there are fraudulent intentions (that means particular mental events of the past), but on recognisable consequences for the research community. Criticising the constructivist modeling of questionable research, we reconstruct certain contributions by Emil Abderhalden, Richard Goldschmidt, Franz Moewus, and Ernst Waldschmitz‐Leitz as serious misconducts respectively frauds. We also show that specific social factors — often regarded as “apologising” conditions — decisively interfere with the principle of trustworthiness in the scientific community.     

Wissenschaftsgeschichte und Ur- und Frühgeschichte

During the past few years a history of special subjects and a history of science, being critical and historical as well as taking into account scientific theory and methodology, has established itself under the influence of philosophy in many domains of the sciences. Such a scientific history is now also required in the branch of the science of history. It demands the ability of re-evaluating historical sources and studies as well as the knowledge of the political aspect of a future scientific history. As a matter of fact a future scientific chronicle of prehistory has to examine not only the subject of historical research itself, but also its aim, method and the whole sociopolitical background. This is more important than a positivist study of individual and specific historical aspects, a thorough compilation of different approaches in historical research, scientists and institutions. It is also better than making an arbitrary selection of single biographies in order to have a political legitimation of the present state of research. Moreover, the danger of such a selection is the degradation of persons in history and the falsification of historical facts. Apart from a determination of the subject with regard to scientific and political aspects the search of historical clues as well as the re-evaluation of historical and archeological sources could both lead to a revision of prehistory.     

Karl der Große,Alkuin und die Zeitrechnung

In connection with the Carolingian renewal of education Charlemagne also cared for a homogeneous reckoning of time. He organized the Carolingian reform of the calender with the help of Alkuin of York, an Anglo‐Saxon scholar. Having heard of Alkuin's learning and teaching abilities, the Frankish King invited him to lead his Palace school at Aachen. Moving to Francia 782, Alkuin became the key counselour of Charlemagne for science, education and church matters. Among other subjects Alkuin taught the King especially calendrical reckoning (computus) and astronomy, in which he took a special personal interest. Charlemagne discussed these subjects often with Alkuin, sometimes even in letters, still preserved today. For this correspondence on astronomy and calendrical reckoning it was assumed that Alkuin was the author of four short anonymous writings on computus. Moreover, Charlemagne comissioned Alkuin to write a standard work on computus, which is lost today. But three Carolingian manuals on computus survived. Which of the four anonymous writings really stem from Alkuin himself? What influence he had upon the manuals? These two questions are investigated here on the basis of the most important matter of computus: the calculation of the age of the moon in the 19‐year lunar cycle, necessary for dating the movable feast of Easter (on the first Sunday after the first full moon in spring). These facts were discussed in detail, even vehemently, in the correspondence between Alkuin and Charlemagne.     

Körpergefühl und Raumvorstellung: Leonardo und Descartes

“Experience and the conception of the world in science in transition to modern times” is the general subject. There are two different points to be made clear, i.e. 1. That the conception of the world had to be made imaginable by art before it could be taken over by science. The central perspective dates back to about three centuries before the time Descartes developed the co-ordinate system. 2. Furthermore it should be taken into account that it was first of all due to the lead of the painters (especially in the Italy of the Quattrocento’) that the possibility of making experiences had changed. In a space opened by a perspective view and seemingly thus appearing as measurable even the painted figures acquire a new reality. Due to his anatomic studies Leonardo could treat the natural movement of the figures shown in his paintings. It was the artists who first of all investigated optics and anatomy before relations could be measured with the aid of scientific methods ami before quantities — instead of qualities — could become the base of unbiased science, as called for by Galilei in 1623.     

Spekulation und Physik im 18. Jahrhundert. Lomonossow,Kant und Lavoisier in Sachen Erhaltungsgesetz und Äther

As far as the law of preservation of matter and the existence of ether are concerned, Kant, Lomonossow and Lavoisier had very similar views. Nevertheless, according to historical evidence they worked out their theories never taking each other's results for granted. Whereas it is well known that Lavoisier did not base his experiments on the former ones by Lomonossow, it has been argued that Kant based his philosophy of nature on Lavoisier's experiments. I try to show here, that Kant had his philosophy of nature done, prior to Lavoisier's Elements of Chemistry. Further that the only one to have been able to influence Kant was not Lavoisier but Lomonossow. But Kant never mentioned Lomonossow. There is strong evidence that the similarity of views in Kant, Lomonossow and Lavoisier is not due to any kind of interaction between them. This also holds of the (same) mistakes, which Kant and Lomonossow made. The only substantial difference is that Kant thought, that some laws of nature may be logically inferred without experiments.     

Verzeitlichungs- und Historisierungstendenzen in der frühen Geologie und Paläontologie

Steno described in 1669 geological sections which were interpreted as the result of a series of earlier events. Steno used actuogeological methods. This was the first step towards temporalizing nature. Steno was succeeded by a lot of other researchers from different European countries. It is amazing to see, that “actualism” was widespread during the 18th century. The next step was the discovery that fossils are extinct beings (Ray, Hooke and others). Using methods of comparing anatomy W. Hunter (forerunner of Cuvier) could prove in 1769 that the Mastodon is an extinct vertebrate. The work of Soulavie in France (1780) is stressed. He held in his hand the key for solving the problem of index-fossils. About 1800 the importance of fossils for stratigraphy and describing a history of the earth was recognized. Theories and hypotheses were needed to explain the fossil documents (strange shells in older strata and higher developed mammals in younger strata). All these theories couldn't propose a feasible mechanism for the change of beings during the history of the earth. But it could be said, that all fossils proove a history of life and the earth i. e. a progressive development in one sense, a development which is not reversible.