Der Ort des rhetorischen Wissens Kunst und Natur bei Isokrates

This paper poses the question of the place of rhetoric as a discipline. It addresses the topical demand that nature, art, and exercise have to be combined by way of an analysis of Isocrates' Against the Sophists. Its thesis is that the call for a “combination” of art and nature solves the disciplinary problems of rhetoric, even though such a synthesis is in fact inconceivable. Rhetoric is not a science, and does not have access to a methodical correlation of rhetorical strategies and their effects upon the audience. Isocrates' criticism of those rhetoricians who assume that their art could be taught in much the same way as the art of writing is of paramount importance here. The case of Isocrates is instructive because it shows how rhetorical success depends on re-designing the institutional structure of rhetoric and on the capacity to cope with its lack of methodical knowledge. As a result of its para-scientific nature, rhetoric refers to various models and metaphors to present itself as a discipline. Of these the orator perfectus, the orator imperfectus, and the sophist model of the art of writing as criticized by Isocrates are discussed. This paper attempts a rhetorical reading of the discourse of rhetoric by exploring the implications of these metaphors. At the same time it argues for a history of science which does not shrink away from an analysis of such para-sciences as rhetoric. It is precisely the lacking scientificity of rhetoric as a discipline which warrants increased attention from the point of view of the history of science.     

Die Idee einer historischen Entwicklung der Krankheiten des Menschengeschlechts und ihre Bedeutung für die empirische Medizin des frühen 19. Jahrhunderts

In early 19th-century German medicine many doctors had a strong interest in historical pathology. They investigated the historical records of fevers and epidemics in detail, trying to find out how the changing influence of the epidemic constitution worked and hoping that history would help them to define specific disease entities. The underlying theory of this endeavour was that diseases undergo a historical development similar to the evolution of plants and animals. This paper tries to show that historical pathology was, in its time, a legitimate attempt to solve the most urgent problems of empirical medicine.     

Die Einheit der Wissenschaftssprache. Einige wissenschaftstheoretische und wissenschaftshistorische Anmerkungen

Among those conceptions of the history of science which deal with the formation of theories is the concept of the unity of science. This unity is in turn based on the unity of scientific method, the unity of scientific laws and the unity of the language of science. After a systematic explication of modern approaches, historical conceptions of the unity of the language of science are described and analyzed. To these belong first of all the idea of a mathesis universalis and the so called Leibniz program, which leads to the architecture of a Leibniz world.     

Im Blickwinkel der Technik: Neue Verhältnisse von Wissenschaftstheorie und Wissenschaftsgeschichte

Changing Perspectives – From the Experimental to the Technological Turn in History and Philosophy of Science. In the 1960s the philosophy of science was transformed through the encounter with the history of science, resulting in a collaborative venture by the name of “History and Philosophy of Science” (HPS). Philosophy of science adopted ever more regularly the format of the case study to reconstruct certain episodes from the history of science, and historians were mostly interested in the production of scientific knowledge. The so‐called “experimental turn” of the 1980s owed to this interaction between philosophy and history. Its guiding question remained quite traditional, however, namely “How do the sciences achieve an agreement between representation and reality?” Only the answers to this question broke with tradition by focusing not on theory but on the role of instruments and experiments. – Roughly 30 years after the experimental turn, another transformative encounter appears to be taking place. HPS is being transformed in the encounter with philosophy of technology. From the point of view of philosophy of technology, the question does not arise whether and how the agreement of mind and world, representation and reality can be achieved. When things are constructed, built or made, human thinking and physical materiality are inseparably intertwined. Instead of seeking to describe a mind‐independent reality, technoscientific researchers are working to acquire and demonstrate capabilities of experimental or predictive control. When science is regarded as a kind of technology, a program of study opens up for epistemology and so do avenues for the historiography of science. History of science might now show how the problems and procedures of the sciences arise from and impinge back upon a world that is itself a product of science and technology. It thereby abandons its traditional HPS niche existence and joins forces with environmental history, history of technology, social, labor, and consumer history.     

Was zählt der Preis? Dogmengeschichte und Wissensgeschichte der Ökonomie

What’s in a Price? History of Economic Ideologies vs. History of Economic Ideas. This paper suggests applying the approach of a historical epistemology to the field of economics. We observe that an assumedly fundamental opposition between the market and the state dominates popular images of the history of economic ideas. Two conflicting ideologies are roughly assigned to the two opposing sides in the Cold War. To this historical narrative the paper opposes a different view. The argument is that when taking the technical practices of economic knowledge production in the twentieth century into view, similarities abound across ideological ruptures. The chief characteristic change in the recent history of economics was a radical turn towards quantification, measurement, and mathematical modelling. A historical epistemology of economics could show how deeply both, admirers of the state and of the market, share a history. The paper concludes that to-date critique of political economy should also take into consideration a critical perspective towards the unfolding of this measurement revolution in the social sciences.