Deutsch-italienische Wissenschaftsbeziehungen im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert — Dimensionen und Perspektiven

The scientific interrelationships between Italy and Germany in the 18th and 19th centuries — a hitherto neglected area of research — are discussed in an overview according to the following ten dimensions: language knowledge and translations; reviews and bibliographies; library content; personal contents and correspondance; travel reports and travel guides; diaries and autobiographies; university studies and research sojourns; membership in academies and scientific societies; practical and theoretical resonance; comparisons to other countries. This approach, which has to be concretized in future studies, promises at the same time general insights into the logic of science and its progress.     

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.     

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.     

Experientia contra experientiam. Religiöse ‘innere’ und ‘äußere’ Erfahrung im Spätmittelalter und im Übergang zur Neuzeit.

In the late Middle Ages there are two different conceptions of experience: a non-religious, exterior experience, derived from physical perceptions: the Aristotelian conception, and a religious, interior experience: the conception of monastic theology, represented by Bernhard of Clairvaux. In the transition from Middle Ages to modern times the distinction between exterior and interior experience is transferred into the religious experience.