Untitled Flashcards Set

Task 1: The ‘Dark’ Middle Ages

Chair: Lixing

Note taker: Puck

Pre-discussion

Brainstorming:

-> With the knowledge we have now, we determine our image of the middle ages. People believe that people in the middle ages did not use science and believed in stuff like magic.

-> History is written by the winners, so how do we get a realistic truthful view of history?

-> we build on knowledge we already have.

Learning Goals:

-> What is ‘Whig History’?

-> How do we get a truthful view of the history of science?

-> What was the relation between religion and science in the middle ages?

-> The different view on science in the middle ages between the educated (people who wrote about it) and the (rest of the) population

-> What was the middle ages worldview (how were they understanding nature/universe), and what do we consider wrong about it today? And why (process)? 

Post-discussion

Main findings:

Text 1: Revolutionising the sciences: what was worth knowing in 1500

This text is an introduction, other texts will go more in depth about Aristotle, universities

Aristotelian philosopher about the structure of cosmology.

• Aristotle’s cosmology takes on a geocentric universe → earth at the center

Text 2: Flat earth: the history of an infamous idea

Lots of people believe two wrong facts: 

1. Mediaeval people believed the earth was flat

2. The first to prove the earth was round is Columbus

• Instead most educated people did know the earth was round

• There was no dark age with science vs. religion

Text 3: The scientific revolution: an introduction to the history and philosophy of science

Whig history: analysing history while  imposing present values from now onto the past → changing the understanding of historical events.

-Making good and bad people

Text 4: The light ages chapter 3, universitas 

• Talks about the start of universities in Europe in the 12th and 13th centuries

• There where different universities (Paris, Oxford…), who all had a different relationship with the church

• Liberal arts and theology

• Universities preserved and transmitted classical knowledge

• Unionised way of learning

Text 5: The Reception and Impact of Aristotelian Learning and the Reaction of the Church and its Theologians

Aristotelian thought in conflict with the church

• Conflict: natural philosophy

• Aristotle thought the world was eternal while the bible did not

• Double truth

• Thomas Aquinas wanted to reconcile Aristotle with christianity.

Learning goal

-> What is ‘Whig History’?

 Whig history is a (problematic) way of looking at history, it assumes that we can relate events from the past to the present. The past builds up to the present. Whig history portrays good guys and bad guys. It only looks at a certain kind of view to make a point and point at a good or bad guy. As a consequence, whig history writing is inaccurate. Whig history does not see an event as something separate from the present.

-There was a political aim while writing whig history 

-Italian humanists portray the middle ages as the dark ages to look smart and bright or heroes. 

-> How do we get a truthful view of the history of science?

It is very difficult to get a truthful view of the history of science but there are ways to get close

• Doing the opposite of whig history → placing an event or figure into their own context

• Looking at different perspectives, being critical

• No black and white thinking → do not fall for dramatised versions of the past.

-> What was the relation between religion and science in the middle ages?

-The church sees science as a tool to understand the world that God created

-When natural philosophy texts were translated, the church was sceptical 

-the church controlle d science at first but science eventually became moreb of a separate thing, which the church did not like

- Church in Paris banned some of Aristotle's text that because they questioned God's existence

-> The different view on science in the middle ages between the educated (people who wrote about it) and the (rest of the) population

People who were educated knew about the earth being round while we do not know the view from the rest of the population. Usually we only know about the people who were able to write.

-Maybe the rest of the population relied on religion as answers. 

-> What was the middle ages worldview (how were they understanding nature/universe), and what do we consider wrong about it today? And why (process)? 

- Lots of people in the middle ages believed the earth was the center of the universe, while nowadays we now it’s the sun

-How do they understand things (Aristotle): 4 different causes: final, material, efficient and formal

Task 2: Reason Alone

Chair: Laura

Note taker: Emma

Pre-discussion

Brainstorming:

->

Learning Goals:

-> What is the scientific revolution?

• Period: 16th-18th

• some scientist shifted from looking at old things that old people said like aristotle, to doing more research and experiences on their own 

• “Profound change in scientific thought about how people understand the natural truth”

Post-discussion

Main findings:

-> ‘Cogito ergo sum’ what does it mean? Refer to?

(1569-1650)

Descartes wants to impose a natural philosophy which has absolute certainty in which Aristotles lacked. But this is difficult because everything can be questioned, even mathematics. The only thing that we can be sure of is our own existence. We have to be aware of our own imperfection, but we have the idea of perfection in our head so something/someone perfect puts that in our head. We have doubts about things so we are imperfect but we still know that something perfect exists. Here is where God comes in. Perceptions are true because they are imposed by God and he wouldn't lie to you or mislead us. So every clear and distinguished idea that comes into your mind has to be true.

-> What is Decartes' view on animals and what problems does that lead to?

• He claims that animals have just a body, like a mechanical maschine and that the have no mind 

• Humans body is the same but the difference is that we have a mind and soul and that we have language

• They are incapable of suffering

-> Contested concept: 

• Part of change in science were not all historians agree

• Shift from geocentric (world is in the centre if the universe) to heliocentric worldview = simplistic history  

• Historians disagreeing on the concept of the scientific revolution

->  Mechanical world:

• Isaac Beeckman

• Symbol of that time is a clock, it’s a symbol for the new scientific methods, look at nature as something we can also dissect, see it as the same as a mechanical thing

• “The universe operates like a maschine governed by mathematical laws”

Descartes (1969 - 1650)

• Emergence of emotions → vertical motion (there are fluids around the Sun)

• Cogito ergo sum → I think, therefore I am

• Humans are imperfect

  • God is perfect → wouldn’t want to mislead us

  • Clear and distinct ideas

• “Mechanical beasts” ≠ not human (mind, soul, language)

  • Just bodies

  • No mind

  • Incapable of suffering cognitively

  • Can feel pain

• We reject to establish things which are perceived by our senses → misleading illusions

1. Matter is inert

2. Difference between dualities of the experience and qualities of the matter

3. Only one duality: shape/spatial/geometrical extension

4. So space = matter

5. There is no empty space

6. Vertical notion motion generates motion

7. Heliocentric universe + 3 elements and light

8. Relative motion = carried by the motion of the second element

Text 3:

• He thinks that animals can not feel pain, cause they can not think 

• They can feel the pain as a nervous phenomenon but they can not experience it cognitively 

• Humans have reason animals do not, They only have a mechanical body (like a machine)

• Animals do not have a soul, humans have

Text 4:

• They started doing more experimenting in the modern science instead of relying on old sources

• They choose the sources to make it look like they wanted to

• The modern scientific revolution is a european phenomenon

• It gives an overview of what has changed over time

-> What is the difference between the method before the scientific revolutions and after?

→ On the long-term, we can perceive the Scientific Revolution as something experimental

• BUT not everyone was/is on board with one universal understanding

• “Big machine” → contested definition

• Descartes = rationalist

• Mechanical world/philosophy → the idea that we see the world by dissecting it like a machine

  • An approach to science

  • Idea of clarity, measurable, and predictability 

  • Analogy of the clock → dissecting nature like that of a machine

 Task 3: Seeing is believing 

Chair: Louisa

Note taker: Cooper

Pre-discussion

Learning Goals:

• What is the scientific landscape before (the 16th century) and after?

  • Rise of mathematics

  • Old science and new science (scholastics)

-> Justifying the new through the old (e.g. Aristotle)

-> Authority regarding the old texts vs. authority on the factual experiences regarding the new world

-> More empirical knowledge (new science)

-> Although science is moving away from ancient theories, there is still influence of the old

-> Influence of language: the label of new

• What is Bacon’s approach to science (his method)

  • Divided up the mind: 

    • Memory: History, natural and civic

    • Imagination: poesy

    • Reason

      • Philosophies

        • Divine: theology

        • Natural: Operative, speculative

        • Human: human behaviour, ethics, morals

• How do Bacon's views differ from Descartes?

  • Bacon has an inductive method, descartes is more deductive

  • Bacon trusts his senses, descartes doesn’t

• What is the definition/impact of scientific authority

  • Both solution and struggle

  • Need authority for people to expect your ideas

  • It is difficult to obtain and use your authority

• What is the idea of Bacon’s idols?

  • Idols of the tribe: temptations common to all human, tendency to judge things superficial 

  • Idols of the den: linked the character, personal biases shaped by personal upbringing

  • Idols of the marketplace: how language is incomplete

  • Idols of the theatre: false information that is 

  • Idols are things that can introduce biases

• What are the critics of both Bacon and Descartes’ ideas? (and solution?)

  • Cavendish was critical of bacon because she thought that he was very classist

    • That only gentlemen were able to verify 

  • Cavendish wants new epistemology is who is doing the research

  • She thinks that bacon isn’t truly neutral 

  • The person working the instrument has bias

• She criticises Descartes because he looks at himself outside of the natural world.

Bacon, F. (1620, English translation 2019) → Laura, Cezara, mat, Lena

• Bacon advocates for a new empirical method of research 

• This new method should improve human life

• Comes to his statements in an inductive way

• He tries to be more a guide rather than a judge

  • Doesn’t want to put down 

Bowler, P. J. & Morus, I. R. (2020) → Cooper, Tapio, Puck, Emma 

•  The changes in science during the 17th century

• Mathematics becomes more important

• Switch from authority to experience

• Role of empirical experience

• The social status of mathematics and other sciences

Helden, A. van (1994) → Cooper, Tapio, Guangjia lu, Louisa, Joshua

• Talked about the inventions of telescopes

• Talked about different scientists ways of presenting the knowledge they gained

• Pre Telescopic astronomer

• What people knew about you and your authority impacted the authority of your work

• How astronomy developed

Kenny, A. (2006) → Guangjia Lu, Puck, Lixing, Emma

• Introduced theories of bacon

  • Memory, Reason (philosophy - divine, natural, human), Imagination

• Chief goal of science is utility

• People need to use induction rather than deduction 

Keller, E. (1997) → Marie, Louisa, Lixing, mat, Joshua

• How cavendish criticises Bacon and Hooke’s opinions

  • Thought that they were self centred

  • People that follow mechanical philosophy also 

• Cavendish disagreed with Bacon’s new way of doing science

• Organic materialism: Nature as a whole is an organism, men are just a part of it

Shapin, S. (1996) → Marie, Laura, Cezara, Lena

• Shifted view from looking at authorities to experiments

• To use your own reason

• To think for yourself and not accept everything you hear

• Based their knowledge and experimentation in maths

• Talk about how big the shift from the past is, even though in reality this isn’t truly the case

K

Task 4: “God Said: Let Newton Be!”

Chair: Cooper

Note taker: (pre-discussion Louisa) Hailey

Pre-discussion

Brainstorming:

-> Newton’s rivalry with Hooke

     -Robert Hooke claimed he was the originator of the theory of gravitation

     -Newton was not interested in sharing credit of his discovery

     -Hooke’s reputation never recovered because of Newton. Newton burned Hooke’s portrait and some of his works. (was found in the video)

Learning Goals:

-> How did Newton relate to God through his research?

     -Newton studied theology and believed god was like a puppet master pulling the strings.      

    -He believed god acted indirectly through either alchemy and/or gravity

   God

    -Newton believed in God and people thought he was a deist which was a misconception

    -Newton believed alchemy was one of the few ways god interacted with the world.

    -Newton believed you no longer need god to explain how the world works. The only remaining point where god seemed necessary is the creation of the world.

   -Newton formed a theory of christ as being divine but not part of god

   -Newton didn’t believe in the trinity

   -

-> How are rationalism and empiricism combined in Newton’s method?

    -Newton uses evidence(imperialism, empericalism) in order to fuel his reasoning (rationalism) and show “proofs” of how the world works.

-> How are Newton and Descartes’ worlds intertwined?

     -Both were big rationalists thinkers in maths and physics. Descartes believed god was like a “clockmaker”, setting everything in motion and stepping back to watch. This is often mistakenly attributed to Newton, who instead believed god was still active. Newton and    

Descartes often wrote about how stupid the other was.

     Newton

   - Born in the 17th century in 1642

   -Discovered gravity

   -first big work was a mathematical model of optics (how light works). Newton was the one who said light is made up of particles but as we know today, light is made up of particles and waves. He proved the theory of light wrong using two prisms

   -saw alchemy as the study of the essence of things

   -used maths both to be precise and to make his text purposefully hard to read

   -was associated with comets

   - valued quality of experiments rather than quantity

   - didn’t like talking in terms of probability

→ Misconceptions about Newton

  - The apple falling was only told as a story to help the public understand what gravity was

 -That he was a deist

  -was purely rational and dismissed the need for god

     Descartes

    - Born in the 17th century, born in 1596, died in 1650

     -People who followed him were called Cartesians

    -believed that you should get knowledge by questioning everything you can until you get to things you can no longer question

    Boyle

  - was the first to put heavy importance on experiments. In fact, he didn’t trust mathematics as there was too much randomness in the world. Newton followed in Boyle’s footsteps but mixed mathematics into the experiments.

-> What is the impact of alchemy on Newton? 

   -Newton saw alchemy as the study of the essence of things. He believed it was one of the few ways god interacted with the world.

-> Define: Newtonian Universe

   - is one ruled by gravity as the main actor. It is finite and everything is pulled “down” towards a centre point.

-> What was the impact on the world of science post-release of Newton’s works? 

    -Newton’s works acted as a catalyst for people to combine rational and empirical study. He basically kick-started the scientific revolution. He encouraged people to look at experiments to form their theories, but to also look for the patterns in nature.

Post-discussion

Main findings:

->  

Research Intermezzo

Main ideas 

Latour

• Dissenter = questioning everything, going through the entire laboratory to look for issues, making your own laboratory to disprove 

-> money & time are needed

• Raw data 

1. Claims

2. Texts

3. More texts

4. Diagrams = graphs…

5. Instrument = device no matter the size provide visual display

6. Mouthpieces = spokesman= “The author behaves as if he or she were the mouthpiece of what is inscribed on the window of the instrument.”  talking for the instruments and datas

7. Arrays of instrument

8. Trial of Strength = depending on who is winning if the dissenter win - spokesperson are seen as subjective (claims loose importance = something not real, claims are artefacts), and if dissenter loose mouthpieces seen as objective (claims seen as facts)

• Blackboxing= scientific & technical works visible by its own success

Sismondo

How are facts made?

• Conversation 

  • between people 

  • Negotiations concerning the interpretation of the datas

-come to an agreement 

• Scientific reasoning through micro sociological intervention

• Manipulating the nature = Experimental design : 

  • scientist not just an observer but an active influence

  • Bricolage= Tinkering: not always working

  • Different influences/factors limiting in a laboratory: what you are able to do and how to interpret 

• Tacit knowledge = knowledge by practice/experience, cannot be read in books, 

4 ways of editing

1. Filter = not all the informations, change how they are doing the research for credibility - giving too much datas will make the reader lost- straightforward path that sounds the most logica

2. l= influence of the author to make claim more helpful

3. More uniform: organizing and cleaning the datas you have - make it more accurate and relevant 

4. Upraged : negotiations the interpretations of the visual datas/knowledge- to make it better/ for better understanding -Authorship/Crediting = following the guidelines, 

5. Defined by being visually coded and labelled = clear interpretations

Ethnographers= way of practicing is to go in labo and treat the subject as something completely different from them (alien)- ask “stupid” question in order to understand how science is studied in laboratories

Both Latour & Sismondo: Shift in agencies 

Intermezzo questions:

Bullet point with sentences allowed 

Even as a not scientist should be able to understand

Connects to literature 

Reference the video (eventually interview)

No opinions

Brainstorming 

-About the app Sleepio 

-What was the financial reception concerning the ratio?  

1. What does this scientist investigate? What are the central questions in his or her work?

• What was your original reason to apply for this Phd

• What was the original research question and why did you change it?

2. How has the scientist set up his or her experiments or research project? 

• What limits did you faced during the experimentations

• How do you select your participants ?

Are your participants equaily divided in males and females?

• What instruments did you use? 

• How do you choose this programme (informatic), why and what is the reliability?

3. What objections and problems might the researcher meet, and how does he or she attempt to counter these? 

• Why are people dropping out? 

• What type of peer review did you get?

• What are the changes of method due to critics?

• What disagreement has been faced but not said in the paper? 

• Did you have struggles with the instrument you were using?

4. What measures has the researcher taken to make his or her results as convincing as possible?  

• What part of his process is he ignoring?/ How did you filter your information for the final paper?

• Why does he find it relevant to mention the contributor Sleepio?

Task 5: Beyond Eurocentrism 

Chair: Emma

Note taker: Louisa

Pre-discussion

Learning Goals:

-> How has knowledge circulated globally?

-> When did globally-circulated-knowledge fail to work out?

-> What do European systems gain by painting science as having started in Europe?

-> What is the relationship between Western and non-Western knowledge?

-> What are the different approaches to these relations?

-> How have the framings of scientific revolution neglected other perspectives (non-Western)?

-> What are some examples of these differing perspectives which have been neglected?

-> What are the harmful consequences of neglecting those perspectives?

Post-discussion

Main findings:

Circulationist model: A model that looks at the creation of knowledge by focusing on the relation of non-Western and Western knowledge

• The movement/exchange/interaction of knowledge, ideas, and technologies across different cultures and regions

• Raj provides this model as a solution to the comparativist and diffusionist model

• Rewriting history from a circulationist approach

Diffusionist mode (Raj, 2017, p. 451): A particular way of looking at history

• Knowledge which starts from the West

• Taking the idea of Scientific Revolution for granted

• Considering that the West of Europe was the ‘West’ of Europe and thereafter spread

• Justifying colonisation—power dynamic

Comparativist model (Raj, 2017, p. 450): A model that compares different cultures, societies, or historical periods to understand similarities and differences

• Comparing Europe’s scientific knowledge and its production to that of non-European societies

A model → a different method to approach the history of science

What are the underlying issues with the comparativist and diffusionist models?

1. Taking the West as a standard

2. Disregarding non-Western history, scientific development and technology

3. Disregarding that a lot of Western knowledge has formed on that of non-Western—contradictory

4. Oversimplification

5. Eurocentric models

Impact of the Cold War on the Scientific Revolution

• Focus on scientific knowledge and technology

• Preference of “early-modern” 

Hortus Malabaricus (Magnus Opus) by Van Reede

• Commissioned in the 1960s by a Dutch colonial official

• Aimed to catalog and describe the diverse flora of the Malabar Coast (modern-day Kerala, India)—an area rich in medicinal and economically valuable plants

• Collaborative efforts that involved many non-European experts, particularly local South Asian scholars BUT often accredited to Van Reede

• Circulationist model at work: the interaction between Western and non-Western which created the knowledge

The Dutch and Japanese medical history from a circulationist perspective (Cook, 2004): 

• “Most of what the Europeans learned not only came from other people, but originated as an indirect product of someone else’s legacy” (p. 2) E.g. Asian medicinal practice

• A dutch individual was commissioned to go to the 

Task 6: Ordering Nature 

Chair: Guangja Lu

Note taker: Laura

Pre-discussion

Brainstorming:

-> classification

Learning Goals:

-> Differents approaches (Linnaeus and Buffon)

-> Why would they classify? (motives behind collections)

-> What was controversial about it? 

-> What are the political implications of classification (race & gender)? 

((((-> timeline?))))

Post-discussion

Main findings:

-> 

• Buffon:

1707-1788

Critics Linnaeus -> singular and secular 

Secular approach: 

One individual species of men

P112: order giving by nature itself

Took knowledge from ancient texts like Aristotle and Pliny

Imperfect nature 

Historical & Geographical: Animal and plants can change depending on the place/ climat 

Use natural system

• Linnaeus

Used a Binomial nomenclature system, an artificial system, that he divide in senera and in classes (plants, animals minerals) -> classify plants based on the position and number of the male and female parts 

Wrote Systema Naturae: religious perfect order is static/does not change, christian -creationist,

Natural history for economic profit bc with the knowledge he can minimize import + legacy -> people brought research material and botanical become more universal   =

• Critics

1. Linnaeus: Religion and breast-feading

-wet-nursing = someone else taking care of someone’s kid for upper-classes

“Mammalia” = political nomination to promote and emphasize the idea that women have to feed their kids  (off the) breast, demasculiting, bc were criticize, 

terms used to classify animals “mamals” -> Linnaeus combine human and animals but ppl did not like it bc sees animals as “bad” 

Gender politics: did not want the breast to have a use bc seen as pure and virgin so it’ll be >< religion

Female perspectives 

Promote idea of women staying at home

Not feminist 

2. Jablonski

How racism through skin color exists

Skin color not only one characteristic but most visible 

Early classificat° : 

Linnaeus split up ppl into groups and give them characteristic

Buffon categorize depending on climates (hot-darker and cold-lighter) 

Whiteness associated with goodness and blackness the opposite 

Hume & Kant: Your talents is based on skin color

One drop rules= if you have one black person in ancestors you are automatically black and serve for slavery even if they look white 

• Natural history 

= history of living things and objects focus on the relationship of one to another 

-Aristotle and Pliny 

-starts to be popular again in 15th century in Western Europe 

-Popular with new discoveries and explorations 

-Botanical gardens and cabinets of curiosities (= room of collection of different objects like tools, antiquities, …) predecessors of museums 

-At the beginning: with the courts for upper-classes to show off their collections 

Task 7: The Encyclopédie 

Chair: Lena

Note taker: Puck

Pre-discussion

Brainstorming:

-> systemizing knowledge

Learning Goals:

-> What does the Encyclopedie present and systematise?

-> What was the political aspect of the Encylopédie? 

-In relation to the Ancient Regime (+define)

-In relation to the Church 

-Construction of the West and the East (identity) 

->Why was it censored?

->Who are Diderot and d'Alembert?

-> Connection between the Encyclopédie and the Enlightenment (use of science for political means)

Post-discussion

Main findings:

→ Encyclopédie → Greek word for circle

Topics:

-The tree of knowledge: from the Bacon model, but opposed to Bacon's model, they used philosophy as the main point and defended the importance of it. It’s to make a whole. 

-Discourse preliminaires : an argument on morality, was inspired by Descartes and Locke.

- Critical towards religion and political authority, and to prevent it from despotism Persia was used. Persia was used to advance social political and philosophical goals. The goal was less to portray Persia accurately.

-religion through reason

Enlightenment:

Intellectual movement in the eighteenth century, influenced by the scientific revolution. It started in Paris but spread over Western Europe. 

Key ideas were: the use of reason, intellectual freedom, importance of education, questioning social and political knowledge, rule by law, not rulers, separation of power within the government

3 stages:

1. The early enlightenment: first half of eighteenth century 

• Isaac Newton: science, observations and experiments

• John Locke: Laws of nature will form a secular society

2. High Enlightenment: begins with the publication of the spirits of law in 1748 

-Montesquieu, voltaire, diderot, Rosseau 

3. Late enlightenment:

• Big impact from Rosseau 

• Focusing on economic freedom

• Adam Smith

Editors of the encyclopédie 

-both lived in Paris

-moving away from religion (no rejection from God)

 -rooted in ethics

D'alembert: (1717-1783): Was a Mathematician 

Diderot: (1713-1784): Was a philosopher and humanist

Critics:

• In the beginning not much criticism, with support from political authority, French could not go against it.

• The ideas were revolutionary and radical towards religion and the state→ censored by the state of French, but able to continue through private funding

• Jesuits/Jasenits feel attacked because it went against the education system because encyclopédie stated it was too traditional

• Unified front of the church and the state were against it. With support from economic liberalism

• Figures like Élie-Catherine Frérom and Charles Palissot de Montenoy emerged as key critics, launching personal attacks on Diderot and his associates.

• Seven years of war, instability in France was used to attack the encyclopédie.

• Diderot and D’alembert also accused of plagiarism Because they followed Bacon’s model very carefully

Task 8: A Scientific Society 

Chair: Mat

Note taker: Laura

Pre-discussion

Brainstorming:

-> 

Learning Goals:

-> What was the historical context (Ancien Régime, aristocracy, clerical privilege)? 

-> How have the methods of natural science influenced the science of mankind?

Newton seen as very successful 

Use quantitative methode, observation and experiments to find social law that would be applied to everyone 

General law= apply to everybody, not looking at individuals situations 

-> What are biopolitics?

To critique society 

What you choose to do with it can be “good or bad” To a certain extent

Control and surveillance for wealth (vaccine) but also to oblige the morality of monogamy because better -> unethical bc use quantitative datas to improve society in a way that does not profit all people example: wealth do not go to the people but the king// being exploited 

-> What did the Enlightenment think of the Ancient Régime? What was wrong about it?

Montesquieu: did not like it bc believe in separation of power where in ancient régime is monarchical

Votaire agree bc believe in Trias politica but not everyone can be enlightened 

Absolute monarchy did not fit into democracy

But Voltaire was a bourgeois, Montesquieu was an aristocrats and Rousseau from the lower class and is the only one to 

Decentralized power and physiocrats: correspond network = ask people volunteer to send informat° to gate datas and do quantitative research 

But Turgot was member of it and failed in his job (bc reforming the economy of the state => borrow money) 

Enlightenment : against hereditary -> Voltaire : enlightened people should rule (enlightened = be educated + think of the human being in a good way) gov who would support and give money to the Arts & Science 

->What were these different conclusions/what are different scientists and their ideas of a scientific society? 

Post-discussion

Main findings:

Adam Smith:

• Moral Sentiments

  • General law

-sympathy/empathy

• Wealth of nations

  • National people

  • economics

-free market

-invisible hand

-self-interest

Rousseau

• Critiqued materialism

• Condemned inequalities

• Ideal state:

Solidarity + republican commonwealth based on good will

General will 

Social contracts involve people and governors

Voltaire

• Free speech

• Church restricted -> Trias politica: Split the governments 

Legislation, administration, jurisdiction 

• Not everyone can be enlightened 

Montesquieu

• Separation of power

• Laws should be reflection of the culture and 

• The way people should be regulated depends on climate

• Use experiments -> natural law can be applied to human inspiration from Scientific revolution (Newton)

• Wrote Spirit of the Laws

Turgot

• Market should be free without influence of the government 

• Member of the physiocrats 

• Was a controller general of France (finances & taxes)

• Believe that social sciences should be empirical and quantitative to improve society

Biopolitics by Foucault (2 centuries after)

• Because the populat° is the source of productivity, the populat° should be organized (=What makes a nation wealthy is the productive unite and in order to capitalize on that you need the population to be organized and it involves datas)

•  Improving living conditions to generate more income per working-persons

• Control and surveillance 

Political arithmetic

• Using quantitative method to develop politicsQuantitative methods

Task 9: The Dull Catalogue of Common Things 

Chair: Tapio/Emma

Note taker: Mat

Pre-discussion

Brainstorming:

-> 

Learning Goals:

-> What were the critics of Newtonian's natural philosophy (scientific revolution) and of Enlightenment?

-> What can art express about nature that science can't/ what are the limitations of scientific understanding?
-science does not discuss emotions the same way art does
-art can express and evoke subjective emotions and ideas
-science is more objective, and not necessarily concerned with daily experiences as much

-> What are the core ideals of romanticism?
-emphasis on nature and its mystical background

-emphasis on the individual in nature 

-using and making art (paintings, novels, poems) focused on mysticality, emotion, and the individual development

-heavy emphasis on using poetry to showcase irony
-Importance of the aesthetic experience

-> What issues arise through trying to understand things solely through a scientific lens?

-detachment from ethics

-detachment from your own humanity but also that of society and surroundings

-potential disastrous consequences 

-> Who are key figures of romanticism and what do they believe?
Humphry Davy: inspired frankenstein. Conducted public experiments for people to see, for ex. With electricity.
Goethe: Critic on newton's objective truths

-> Specify Goethe’s ideas about Newtonianism and what are his general ideas? And how is he related to romanticism?
Goethe critiqued newton's idea on light. He found that empirical research could not encompass the true experience of colour. He deducted three kinds of light, instead of Newton's one kind of white light that could be split. The three kinds were:
- physiological: An optical illusion formed by the brain. Ex. seeing complimentary colours within shadows.
- Physical: Colour found within reflections. How light changes when hitting surfaces.
- Chemical: Fixed colours as a process, such as pigments in paint, or the green cells in plants
All kinds of colours are interactions with light, perception, and material objects.

Post-discussion

Main findings:

->

Task 10: Nature and Environment

Chair: Cooper/Tapio

Note taker: Mat/Louisa

Pre-discussion

Brainstorming:

-> 

Learning Goals:

-> What were the ideas  of Humboldt?

// to romanticism
-> What was the perceived relation between humans and nature within romanticism?

‘human exploration of nature’ 

-> How did Goethe’ and Schellings' ideas influence our idea of nature now? And how did it look before?

-> What problems did the romantics perceive? And how is this still relevant in our time?

Post-discussion

Main findings:

What were the ideas of Humboldt to romanticism?

• Emphasis on nature

• Using art to express emotions and individual development

• Emphasis on poetry → to showcase irony

• Nature is a mirror of human emotions

• View of nature as a resource to a lively, interconnected entity through romanticism; less of a resource and more of an organism

• Romanticism emphasised that we can’t know everything 

Shellings

4 doctrines

• (1) Unity of mind and matter

• (2) Organism as an explanatory model

  • Three organic forces:

    • Irritability → organic activity/movement

    • Reproduction → organic receptivity/sensation

    • Sensibility → organic metabolism for growth/procreation

• (3) Unity of nature and its forces

• (4) Development aspect of nature

  • Nature is an outcome of evolutionary graduated succession → not static

  • Often seen as driven by polar antagonism forces

Humboldt

• Form as a key to understanding nature → starting from Goethe → there is an ideal form which implies a broader ever-changing context → you must seek the connection between these forms (reference: Nassar, 2022, p. 185)

  • Less about ideal forms, more so the idea of the form

• Goethe’s focus: structure and character of individual beings

  • Two factors that students of nature must take into account: (1) internal structure/form of living being and (2) its relation to its external environment

• Humboldt’s focus: individual beings’ relations in the wider world

• Art as a scientific instrument

• Moral implications → the way we understand nature has an influence on our behaviour and our how we impact nature

• Holism → real knowledge requires not just empirical data like it did before, rather it implies a holistic approach to understanding; interdependence between everything in nature

  • To learn about this, we must approach embodied aesthetic

• The timeliness and transdisciplinary approach to nature tied to global process and their integration have obstructed the readability and reception of his works

• Anthropocene → the time during which humans have had a substantial impact on our planet

  • Noticed degrading conditions of both humans and the environment

• Embodied cognition → his way of viewing the world while taking in all the senses

• Ongoing dynamic collaboration between living beings and their surroundings → bilateral relationship between organism and environment → one cannot exist without the other

Humboldt on colonialism

• Relation to deforestation through the justification of the colonisers

• Example of Orinoco rainforests

  • Spanish monks used eggs to produce oil for burning their lamps

  • Argues that the monks never practised fishing like this before, rather it was introduced by Jesuits—colonisers)

What was the perceived relation between humans and nature within romanticism?

• An interconnection between the two

• Took nature as a source of inspiration to gain deep emotion and understanding

• Comparison between clock (mechanical) and organism 

  • Power over the clock to shape it as you want

  • An organism is ever-changing and far from simple

How did Goethe’ and Schellings' ideas influence our idea of nature now? And how did it look before?

• The idea that we are part of one big whole still remains today

• Schelling: we are part of nature too, and anything that we do to nature will directly involve us

• Goethe: focus on how we study nature and our relationship with it

What problems did the romantics perceive? And how is this still relevant in our time?

• Nowadays we put in a lot of work to attempt to solve the existing climate issues

• Consequences of industrialisation → the economy and technical world became a danger as it was placing itself above nature

• Disconnection with nature → still an existing nature if people present little-to-no connection with it