ArgumentDrawing and writing number among the most widespread scientific practices of representation. Neither photography, graphic recording apparatuses, typewriters, nor digital word- and image-processing ever completely replaced drawing and writing by hand. The interaction of hand, paper, and pen indeed involves much more than simply recording or visualizing what was previously thought, observed, or imagined. Both writing and drawing have the power to translate concepts and observations into two-dimensional, manageable, reproducible objects. They help to develop research questions and they open up (...) an interaction between the gathering of phenomena and the formation of theses. Related to the manifold studies of representational activities in the sciences and the humanities, this topical issue tries to refine our understanding of the capacities of drawing and writing as research techniques; i.e. as productive epistemic practices. In particular the contributions address three aspects: the material conditions and configurations of the “scene of drawing and writing,” the involved procedures of production, and the languages of inscription. (shrink)

: During the "institutional revolution" between 1870 and 1910 almost two dozen physics institutes were newly erected in Germany. The design of these buildings was largely determined by sets of precautions against various sorts of disturbances. These undertakings were by no means unique. Recent historical studies have identified similar attempts in physics institutes outside Germany. But as yet, hardly a word has been wasted on the necessity of these precautionary measures. It seems to be self-explanatory that disturbances should be precluded (...) from scientific investigations. My paper criticizes this approach. The evidential nature of this assertion rests on the questionable assumption that disturbances are "external factors," which hinder physical research. I examine the 'architecture of disturbance' and show that it is the set of precautions itself which sometimes produces 'disturbing' effects. I then focus on particular sources of disturbance that were taken into account in the design of the buildings, and analyze the aporias that characterize the 'external' definition of disturbances. In conclusion, an alternative understanding of disturbances is offered. Following Michel Serres's concept of the parasite, I suggest that disturbances indicate the "being of relation" in physics research around 1900. From this point of view I finally sketch two novel features that governed the design of physics institutes after the turn of the century. (shrink)

ArgumentIn spring 1888, an anonymous critic raised severe doubts about Ernst Mach's and Peter Salcher's studies, published one year before, on the processes in the air caused by very rapid projectiles. Paraphrasing the experiments for the French popular science magazineLa Nature, the critic insinuated that the photographs upon which Mach and Salcher's argument were ostensibly based must have been of such low quality that they did not allow any well-founded conclusion. The critic did not deny the phenomena Mach and Salcher (...) had presented in their article; he denied that the photographs taken in the course of the experiments could permit any observation of the phenomena. I take the resulting quarrel as a window into the actors’ ideas on the requirements of “good observations” and the role of technical devices in this case. In particular I enquire how the various arguments relate to Lorraine Daston's and Peter Galison's framing of photography as an emblem of “mechanical objectivity.” We will see that in the case under debate, actors considered naked-eye observation, observation by telescope and photography mainly with regard to the challenges of the particular research object. (shrink)

In the 1890s Ludwig Mach employed photography for visualizing streamlines in the emerging field of aerodynamic research. Étienne-Jules Marey developed a similar approach at the turn of the century. The two projects can be related to a number of current discussions on the history of scientific photography. The case of Ludwig Mach demonstrates how the collection of numerical data became both the subject and the challenge of a line of research intimately linked to the capacities of photography. At the end (...) of the nineteenth century, the particular potential of scientific photography is very often defined by comparison with the limited power of the human eye. In contrast, the example of streamline photography underlines that the requirements of the research context are critical for successfully employing photography. Marey’s studies point to a tension between his characterization of chronophotography as a method for analyzing the elementary units of processes in nature on the one hand and the necessary summation of single moments in time in his recordings of streamlines on the other. What Marey usually qualified as a cumbersome confusion was here the prerequisite of observation. The ’philosophy in machines’ ultimately limited the success of streamline photography; it aided in debates about qualitative matters, but could hardly provide what most interested scientists and engineers: reliable numbers. (shrink)

In March 1911, Karl von Frisch visited the Zoological Station in Naples for the first time. During his stay, Frisch, who had just received his doctorate, was studying the color adaptation of marine fish. At the same time, as diary notes show, he also completed an extensive tourist program. Frisch was not alone in this; many scientists combined their time in Naples with excursions and other pleasures. Usually these activities are labelled—in Frisch's words—as „diversion“ and „relaxation“ from the activities in (...) the laboratory. Expanding this point, I will examine the various relationships between labour, recreation, research, and tourism based on Frisch's notes during his stay in Naples. Finally, I will take a look at the financial side of Frisch's stay in Naples. (shrink)

In his lecture course “The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics” (1929–1930) Martin Heidegger repeatedly alludes to experiments with insects as examples for the relation of animals to the world. One report deals with a photograph made through the compound eye of a glow worm. By questioning what the glow worm might see, Heidegger separated animal vision from human vision as ontologically incomparable. In my paper I first show the source of Heidegger’s report and then discuss how deeper knowledge of the original (...) investigation might shed new light on Heidegger’s presentation and his conclusions. (shrink)

Recent studies of scholarly data work argue that whatever researchers handle as data and, in particular, what researchers consider as potential evidence for supporting claims, counts as data. In this article I extend the relational approach towards data to the various ways of dealing with data in the course of a single research project. Relying on an example from ecology, I argue that data gain presence for and occupy researchers in manifold ways: for example, as a promise, desire or pressure, (...) or as a problem of trust and strength. In this way we notice that data, in the eyes of researchers, have more than one mode of existence, each of which is linked with its own expectations, challenges and actions. And we notice that these modes of existence not only coexist in the framework of a single project, but can also compete with each other. (shrink)

ArgumentThe paper focuses on the instrumentality of writing in the context of scientific research. It is suggested that the tool-character of writing is related to specific writing procedures, such as the list. These procedures can vary in their degree of complexity and often follow rules that are not codified. In any case, writing procedures can be characterized as non-material devices of “concretion.” Two examples from the notebooks of the physicist and philosopher of science, Ernst Mach, will help to develop the (...) notion of writing procedures. Typical for Mach's use of his notebooks, they highlight the effects of writing in the context of reasoning and reflecting. (shrink)

Spontaneous Histories, Spontaneous Philosophies: Concepts of Science in Academic Training. Science studies and history of science usually focus on exploring scientific research activities. Academic training does not garner much attention by contrast. However, what scientists think and do in the course of research activities is not completely independent of what they once have learned. I suggest that in academic training, beneath everything else, a kind of ‘spontaneous philosophy of the scientists’ (Louis Althusser) is established. Textbooks mark one entry point to (...) approach the concepts of science students are confronted with. As an example, I rely on a chapter on the “history of macroeconomics” from a recent textbook. (shrink)

: The contributions to this volume originate from the workshop "Hauptsachen und Nebendinge—Pure Science and its Impurities," organized by Christoph Hoffmann, which took place at the Max-Planck-Institute for the History of Science (Berlin) in July 2000. We wish to thank all participants for rich and stimulating talks and discussions.

With the death of Ernst Mach on February 19, 1916, one day after his seventy-eighth birthday, a question finally became explicit that had been looming for some time. It was as simple as it was fundamental: who, in the end, was this man, a scientist or a philosopher? The importance of this question for contemporaries can easily be gleaned from the obituaries that appeared in the weeks following Mach's death: one in the Physikalische Zeitschrift, written by Albert Einstein, and another (...) in the Archiv für die Geschichte der Philosophie, written by Mach's former student Heinrich Gomperz. They both addressed this critical issue in plain words. Einstein stressed that Mach “was not a philosopher who chose the natural sciences as the object of his speculation, but a many-sided, interested, diligent scientist who also took visible pleasure in detailed questions outside the burning issues of general interest”. Gomperz in turn first emphasized the great loss science had experienced with Mach's death, asking subsequently whether “the suffering science is physics or philosophy?”. His answer broadly followed Einstein's conclusion; relying on Mach's own words, he reminded his readers that Mach never claimed to be a philosopher, but merely was looking for a viewpoint that transcended the disciplinary constraints of particular scientific activities. (shrink)