共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
2.
3.
4.
Peder Anker 《Reviews in Anthropology》2013,42(4):301-322
Moran, Emilio F., ed. The Ecosystem Concept in Anthropology. Boulder, Co.: Westview Press, 1984. xiv + 320 pp. including index. $28.50 cloth. 相似文献
5.
John L. Heilbron 《Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte》2019,42(2-3):200-219
This essay presents analogies between the development of historical writing and of physical science during the early modern period. Its necessarily spotty coverage runs from the mid sixteenth century to the beginning of the eighteenth. The analogies include arising from practical concerns; preferring material documents and experimental inquiries over texts; making use of mathematical auxiliary sciences; distinguishing between primary and secondary elements; establishing new fundamental principles; undermining the traditional world system; and devising methods to control rapidly multiplying knowledge. A history of learning that meets today's standards of historical scholarship should identify and exploit such parallels, not only because of scholarly interest and responsibility, but also because an understanding of the historical importance of linkages between distant branches of learning may help redress the increasing imbalance in resources among the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities in our higher schools and universities. 相似文献
6.
7.
Sarah Hutton 《History of European Ideas》2014,40(7):925-937
SummaryThe issue which I wish to address in this paper is the widespread tendency in Anglophone philosophy to insist on a separation between the history of philosophy and the history of ideas or intellectual history. This separation reflects an anxiety on the part of philosophers lest the special character of philosophy will be dissolved into something else in the hands of historians. And it is borne of a fundamental tension between those who think of philosophy's past as a source of ideas and arguments of interest to the present, and those who hold that the philosophy of the past should be studied on its own terms, in relation to its immediate context, without reference to the present. The challenge, then, is to re-historicise the history of philosophy, and to keep the philosophers onside. 相似文献
8.
9.
José Carlos Bermejo Barrera 《History and theory》2001,40(2):190-205
Making history—in the sense of writing it—is often set against talking about it, with most historians considering writing history to be better than talking about it. My aim in this article is to analyze the topic of making history versus talking about history in order to understand most historians' evident decision to ignore talking about history. Ultimately my goal is to determine whether it is possible to talk about history with any sense.
To this end, I will establish a typology of the different forms of talking practiced by historians, using a chronological approach, from the Greek andRoman emphasis on the visual witness to present-day narrativism and textual analysis. Having recognized the peculiar textual character of the historiographical work, I will then discuss whether one can speak of a method for analyzing historiographical works. After considering two possible approaches—the philosophy of science and literary criticism—I offer my own proposal. This involves breaking the dichotomy between making and talking about history, adopting a fuzzy method that overcomes the isolation of self-named scientific communities, and that destroys the barriers among disciplines that work with the same texts but often from mutually excluding perspectives. Talking about history is only possible if one knows about history and about its sources and methods, but also about the foundations of the other social sciences and about the continuing importance of traditional philosophical problems of Western thought in the fields of history and the human sciences. 相似文献
To this end, I will establish a typology of the different forms of talking practiced by historians, using a chronological approach, from the Greek andRoman emphasis on the visual witness to present-day narrativism and textual analysis. Having recognized the peculiar textual character of the historiographical work, I will then discuss whether one can speak of a method for analyzing historiographical works. After considering two possible approaches—the philosophy of science and literary criticism—I offer my own proposal. This involves breaking the dichotomy between making and talking about history, adopting a fuzzy method that overcomes the isolation of self-named scientific communities, and that destroys the barriers among disciplines that work with the same texts but often from mutually excluding perspectives. Talking about history is only possible if one knows about history and about its sources and methods, but also about the foundations of the other social sciences and about the continuing importance of traditional philosophical problems of Western thought in the fields of history and the human sciences. 相似文献
10.
11.
Schneider WH 《Journal of the history of medicine and allied sciences》2003,58(2):187-224
This article examines the introduction of blood transfusion into general practice from the end of the First World War to the Second World War. Developments during most of this period were not the result of new discoveries but rather the spread of ideas and the establishment of donor organizations to secure an adequate blood supply. The identification, testing, and organization of potential donors were done in a wide variety of settings that reflected differences in political and cultural experiences. At the end of the 1930s, with war approaching, the resolution of problems with storage of blood and the discovery of new techniques for separating and storing plasma dramatically changed transfusion practice. Thus, the innovations of the Second World War were very much based on the development of broad donor organizations plus the new technical discoveries that had occurred during the interwar period. 相似文献
12.
13.
14.
当代中国史研究与口述史学 总被引:3,自引:0,他引:3
当代中国史是历史学家族中最年轻的一门学科,也是目前最有活力、发展最快的研究领域之一。口述史学的出现适应了时代的需要,也顺应了国史变革的方向。寻求二者的最佳结合途径能使二者相得益彰,“合之则两美,离之则两伤”。当代中国史研究需要通过开展口述史来拓展研究视野,活跃研究思路,并弥补与修正史料之不足,以最大程度地发挥其面向社会公共教育和启迪的功能。 相似文献
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.