Die Joule-Thomson-Experimente—Anmerkungen zur Materialität eines Experimentes
NTM International Journal of History and Ethics of Natural Sciences, Technology and Medicine 8 (1):222-243 (2000)
| Abstract | To analyze science as practice and culture has become, since the early 1970s, the object of the new history and sociology of science. Hence, historians and sociologists pay now more attention to the role of experiment in science. In order to study experiments we need to think more carefully about instruments, apparatus and their use. In this article I put forward a method which allows to do both, to study the materiality of experiment as well as the activities involved in the production of experimental results: The replication of an experiment, ie. the reworking of historical experiments with a replica as close to the original as possible. A study of the experiments jointly done by James Joule, and William Thomson in 1852 will demonstrate what might be learned by this method about an experiment. The origins of instruments and the apparatus used in these experiments, their historical context and use will be discussed in detail. With the help of this case study I will try to show that the replication of experiments has much to contribute to an enhanced understanding of experimental practices | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,664 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJ. Mattingly (2001). The Replication of Hertz's Cathode Ray Experiments. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 32 (1):53-75.
Allan Franklin (1990). Experiment, Right or Wrong. Cambridge University Press.
Patrick Joseph McDonald (2003). Demonstration by Simulation: The Philosophical Significance of Experiment in Helmholtz's Theory of Perception. Perspectives on Science 11 (2):170-207.
Friedrich Steinle (2002). Experiments in History and Philosophy of Science. Perspectives on Science 10 (4):408-432.
Ana C. Santos (2009). Behavioral Experiments: How and What Can We Learn About Human Behavior. Journal of Economic Methodology 16 (1):71-88.
Michael A. Bishop (1999). Why Thought Experiments Are Not Arguments. Philosophy of Science 66 (4):534-541.
Jean-Yves Goffi & Sophie Roux (2011). On the Very Idea of a Thought Experiment. In Katerina Ierodiakonou & Sophie Roux (eds.), Thought Experiments in Methodological and Historical Contexts. Brill.
Melinda B. Fagan (2011). Social Experiments in Stem Cell Biology. Perspectives on Science 19 (3):235-262.
Marisa Velasco (2002). Experimentacion y Tecnicas Computacionales. Theoria 17 (2):317-331.
Ronald Laymon (1980). Independent Testability: The Michelson-Morley and Kennedy-Thorndike Experiments. Philosophy of Science 47 (1):1-37.
Elke Brendel (2004). Intuition Pumps and the Proper Use of Thought Experiments. Dialectica 58 (1):89–108.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2010-09-01Total downloads1 ( #274,602 of 549,017 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
