Fordham University Masthead Logo DigitalResearch@Fordham Articles and Chapters in Academic Book Philosophy Collections

2003 From Fleck’s Denkstil to Kuhn’s Paradigm: Conceptual Schemes and Incommensurability Babette Babich Fordham University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://fordham.bepress.com/phil_babich Part of the Continental Philosophy Commons, History of Philosophy Commons, Medicine and Health Commons, Philosophy of Science Commons, and the Sociology of Culture Commons

Recommended Citation Babich, Babette, "From Fleck’s Denkstil to Kuhn’s Paradigm: Conceptual Schemes and Incommensurability" (2003). Articles and Chapters in Academic Book Collections. 7. https://fordham.bepress.com/phil_babich/7

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy at DigitalResearch@Fordham. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles and Chapters in Academic Book Collections by an authorized administrator of DigitalResearch@Fordham. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This article was downloaded by:[Ingenta Content Distribution] On: 23 December 2007 Access Details: [subscription number 768420433] Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Studies in the Philosophy of Science Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713427740 From Fleck's Denkstil to Kuhn's paradigm: conceptual schemes and incommensurability Babette E. Babich a a Department of Philosophy, Fordham University, New York, NY, USA and Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.

Online Publication Date: 01 March 2003 To cite this Article: Babich, Babette E. (2003) 'From Fleck's Denkstil to Kuhn's paradigm: conceptual schemes and incommensurability', International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 17:1, 75 - 92 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/02698590305236 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02698590305236

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution] At: 17:40 23 December 2007 incommensurability and schemes conceptual paradigm: ohclo vnscooia tde fsineadFekshsoiosca n praxis- and historico-social philo- Fleck’s progress. due for and scientific rather science framework was to of conceptual but approach studies German standard oriented sociological in the only even between available or time) incommensurability sophical the of plain (at philosophy a was work to and his history on that influence merely in not their influence of conflicted route that of indirect science the figure of and via a philosophy science. only traditions of himself attention research project Kuhn, to the disciplinary Thomas came the understanding science in to of routine contributions practices also important is Fleck’s it Nietzsche. Ludwik tragic, and is Mach it in If error resistance stylized of and darkened productivity Incommensurability and the 1. menstruation to (on reference Aristotle a of with discussion conclude brief and a mirrors) include I allusions, anatomical htmyas con o h aiiyo h em“aaim.Ti a u o oKuhn’s to the not surrounding due circumstances was political This war “paradigm”. cold term the to the of rather of but lability writing a Fleck the offers credit for to to “paradigm” Fleck’s account unwillingness approach named of also Kuhn praxis-oriented translation may What to and oblique that also discovery. or historico-social but scientific rendering Kuhn, integratedly of periphrastic Thomas more evolution of of philosophy the way own and by understanding history Fleck’s dissemination of framework and indirect conceptual their science standard to the only between incommensurability not an due is science of Abstract Georgetown and USA NY, USA York, DC, New Washington, University, University, Fordham Philosophy, of Department B Fleck’s From SCIENCE OF VOL PHILOSOPHY THE IN STUDIES INTERNATIONAL O:10.1080/0269859032000083050 online/03/010075-18 DOI: 1469-9281 print/ISSN 0269-8595 ISSN ido agaeadtikn vdn nFleck’s in evident thinking the and Fact between tension Scientific language insurmountable an of constituted and kind reflected it conceptual; thus and nepoigteseiclynraieadpatclrsac rgam fproblem of programme be research practical to and continue interested more normative viewpoints tradition specifically a Fleck’s science, the of Indeed, exploring philosophy in congeniality. in tradition encounters than entrenched to the chance limited to such was opposed by from influence Fleck’s resultant more of dissonance scope ruled cognitive the The that science. meant of incommensurability philosophy in view” “received ABETTE . nwa olw,Iageta h iie cp fteiflec fFeksieswas ideas Fleck’s of influence the of scope limited the that argue I follows, what In 17 , NO h tutr fSinicRevolutions Scientific of Structure The . hsatceage httelmtdiflec fLdi lc’ da nphilosophy on ideas Fleck’s Ludwik of influence limited the that argues article This 1 , .B E. n h ocpullnug prpit owa n ih tl althe call still might one what to appropriate language conceptual the and 2003 ABICH Denkstil 1 h incommensurability The oKuhn’s to  03ItrUiest Foundation Inter-University 2003 Denkstil/Denkkollektiv . h eei n eeomn fa of Development and Genesis The olwn icsino Fleck’s of discussion a Following , 2 a terminological was ,a derivation Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution] At: 17:40 23 December 2007 [ Mannheim, rdto.Frti oioa esn ie cetfi huh olciei h perspec- research the particular is conceived collective a scientifically thought is of scientific what given advance which phenomenologists a within in reason, what is tive horizonal is “world”—assumed era this collective any the For the of tradition. call collective thought, thought hermeneuticists of the perspective and context): dominant this or in received genius precisely of taken-for-granted, of notion 151). indeed p. the nature the or [1947], escape to collective 1986 cannot adverts reason: the (Fleck, individual he genius?” his see good the renowned Fleck, to for in their for want of and But, reflected remain not affected, would do Fleck those thought What individualists, scientific thinking. As of a frequently of sensibilities collective. concept most intellectual the “scientists, thought Know”, the To historical, See, offends the To collective given, Look, to “To individual any essay, opposition the working 1947 of landmark within collective In dependence ineluctable the or the West. on foregrounds upon reflection science the emphasis of philosophic correlative function in not Fleck’s its dynamic and or and genius, science more individual scientific of are the individual on ideas on images emphasis these cultural that contemporary Western accident contemporary ideas to an liberal it crucial Western is challenges less freedom—nor research scientific and because of practice) individualism research image of scientific collective through- modern expressly functioning in an as contemporaneously such as conceived well Fleck as (which history communities out thought sciences. of the notion Fleck’s to call history) Germans art the of what equivalent from the idea this altogether of crossover the documents to central and Laudan of Larry question e.g. the around by, pursued today. Popper, science of Karl philosophy establishment by instigated solving 76 fsine n ntrso h tacit philosophy traditional the in of resisted terms strongly in idea an and science, science, to of interior thought” a of “style hnpyiso hmsr.Fekscneta emnlg ete rud“thought around centres terminology conceptual rather Fleck’s practices, research chemistry. [ medical style” or from illustrations physics with than science, biological of interests eae oinof notion related etei ocpini h td fatadcluea n fte1t etr and century of 19th epoch the and work of the end with at associated culture influence and an Wo art century, Heinrich 20th of the study into the continuing in conception aesthetic h ai fhssyie oilzto.Hstogtms tr ihtepropositions the with start must “the words, thought explain, own on His Fleck’s xxi), than In p. socialization. otherwise collective”. active (1986, stylized the scientifically be Schnelle his by to created of Thomas free not basis and is collective the Cohen a of S. member individual Robert editors, later mrsins,IainFtrs,btas h sye faRmrnt raVrer or Vermeer, a or Rembrandt, a of Classicism, “style” (Hellenism, style” the “period also a a but specifically Futurism, more Italian or Impressionism, style” “painter’s a of speaks Denk-Kollektiv a oh t..Tewl-nw xhnebtenMnhi n ri Panofksy Erwin and Mannheim between exchange well-known The etc.). Gogh, Van B lc’ oino tl a t rgn ntescooia hoiso Karl of theories sociological the in origins its had style of notion Fleck’s e oeainta h oino tl o itr n hlspyo cec was science of philosophy and history for style of notion the than alien more Yet turns incommensurability of problem conceptual the Fleck, Ludwik of case the In osrcin neaal once ihivsiaietcnqe,statistical mental techniques, complex a investigative is with truth’ ‘scientific connected that finds inseparably day construction, the of scientist ordinary the . E Denkstil . BABICH 3 ¨ lfflin. h ntr rwo ale eeomns h ocp of concept The developments. earlier on drew turn in who ] ] n h eae fee oeeuiecneto fa“huh collective” “thought a of conception elusive more even if related the and n h atrseegn properties. emergent latter’s the and 4 Struktur hssm ocp fsyei tl xrse oa,a hnone when as today, expressed still is style of concept same This style ) : a noe netniecrec n nunea an as influence and currency extensive an enjoyed had tl ohi em fFeksepesivcto fthe of invocation express Fleck’s of terms in both style unreflected style fFeksonwiig erda twst the to was it as geared writing, own Fleck’s of utr fta aeea o a Not era. same that of culture a be can surpass 6 ocie ssuch. as conceived h olcie(hsi why is (this collective the Kunstwissenschaft Stil 7 sFleck’s As consciously adthe (and (not 5 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution] At: 17:40 23 December 2007 otnigvgrul nMcalFida’ tl-o-oiiitbtoetatmtto attempt overt but his in still-too-positivist especially Friedman’s divide, analytic–continental Michael the bridge in vigorously continuing sFacsYtsadBtyJ etrDbsbtas la eu n ee er In Dear. Peter and Debus such Allan his scholars also in of but Boyle efforts natural Robert Dobbs on first-wave Teeter and work the Jo Principe’s alchemy following Lawrence Betty between form, particular, and taking relation Yates be Frances historical science, to as of the seen because philosophy be of here in may relevant account pseudoscience wake science example, and the sober one science in C. For increasingly between only A. Duhem. drawn an and so Pierre borders Butterfield as did the Herbert back it blurs with far it attention, beginning as certainly widespread also begun, enjoy but already to Crombie had first that the shift a of of one was book this odfn tefpeieya science, a as precisely itself defend to vis-a pr rmdsatdsilnr cn ieRbr etn u u oilgclstudies, sociological qua but Merton, quintessentially Robert qua like again: icons is that disciplinary Fleck’s distant in from inchoate apart less this was Mannheim) Nor by or science. dictated of Dilthey philosophy terms of or precise (think such) era. the as worldviews on science between of science’s, sociological, in ideal conflict is are of hierarchical and what the proponents chastened science to been radical fealty unto have more rendering science retreat: of the studies due an because cultural from or only far rhetorical fading anthropological, vis-a is wars”, discipline science, “science secure, natural the a particularly science less knowledge, of Sociology much of incommensurability. entrenched, sociology of troubles radically, the more disciplinary compound or, to the only science is of science takes understanding of an Fleck to central social, less no itself. ineluctably be history to is knowledge than of truth sociology of scientific relevance that Maintaining oudrietesadr rrcie iwo nltcpiooh fsine Many science. of philosophy analytic Schaffer’s was of of Simon history say) view and begun the have Shapin received might to that Steven or approaches itself) practice. one credit history new standard scholars scientific of is (as the doing it real the undermine fact” argued, in in be to changes “in developed conceptual may of from it factually science history (deriving else, science or science) way anything actually than of the more itself science studies the Thus to how “social” science and precisely and other science of generated (unlike very of history philosophy because refers The for science science knowledge”. problem of conceptual ideal of and rational “manufacture methodological the a remains or life” “laboratory cec tefhsbgnt tedt t w itr,a a ewtesdi the in witnessed be may as history, own its to attend to of begun philosophy Internally, collection has Schaffer. itself and Shapin science to countermeasure nuanced importantly hntentrlsine n eeqiecncetosyfre nta ae mathema- younger same, are that form in formed “scientific” conscientiously current quite image. were their tized and in sciences natural sciences the social than the historically, because, ` 8 vs“cec”poe,ta is: that proper, “science” -vis ti motn ont htscooyo cec e e(rscooyo knowledge), of sociology (or se per science of sociology that note to important is It history to broadly) (more else or particular) (in science of sociology to advert to Yet the on and 153) environment p. the [1960], 1986 on (Fleck, ‘conjunc- prolonged opportunity, author. on a the scientific depends after of be the only truth’ influence often intelligible personal ‘scientific on may be opinion, i.e., and it his tures’, jargon In that special training. knows a professional He in conventions. only expressed manifold and interpretations ntewrso oeta n omnao,Fekws“ha fhstime”. his of “ahead was Fleck commentator, one than more of words the In rgn fLgclPositivism Logical of Origins 10 n ntewnn fte“cec as,scooyhsbe compelled been has sociology wars”, “science the of waning the in And social natural , dtdb oadGeeadAa ihrsn and Richardson, Alan and Giere Ronald by edited RMFLECK’S FROM 11 cec,hsytt no nucnetdstatus uncontested an enjoy to yet has science, ie tde feiga xc oilg of sociology exact an offering studies given cec.Nri hspriual remarkable particularly this is Nor science. ` vssine(ins h eetfr of fury recent the (witness science -vis eita n h i Pump Air the and Leviathan DENKSTIL atn fteWays the of Parting h siigAdept Aspiring The OKH’ PARADIGM KUHN’S TO . 12 ihregard With fesan offers , u if but 9 77 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution] At: 17:40 23 December 2007 upie ooewowie ni a efudt a ntigbt“o wonderful” “how but anything say to (surprise, found and be story can the it on on commentary of writes wake who charge the one a in no etc., work science, surprise) to of continues sociology joke or same philosophy The of context the in of But science. on views nie oacp rrcieol htcrie cetssedrea nauthorized an as endorse scientists certified what only receive that science. tendentiousness or of the definition accept examined all to be ruse—with to invited a yet has of was, suggest. For ruse it would hoax. the pretends expression Sokal Sokal as the an joke ruse, of such of all-too-calculated oddness kind fairy-tale the an or being as from quality far camp hoax, the the to advert to controversy, Harre Rom Ziman, John of contributions the hermeneutics, even and sociology to 78 n a akn,weeohrnms r,dsietesle,lse names. lesser themselves, despite are, names, any the Latour from Bruno other work postmoderns, only own where here the their name Hacking, severing up I by Ian perspective. legacy social show science-critical own and their remotely the to up or are science, shoring putatively town scholars busily even certain of into seen reflexivity, of sociologists be reflex rode to and spontaneous then a Sokal anthropologists in point, how the which constructivists—at think feminists, the to Derrideans, just was it critics by saddled been sometimes has beyond science it literally suffix—calling quite in a and confidence perfect with critically totalizing as This science of critique. adequacy finished the regarding of editors the upon played was it sensibility renewed science. a of to among practice testify Latour, cultural debate, Bruno and the and lived of Golinski the side Jan to socio-anthropological also the but on mainstream, others, the in Toulmin Stephen oidct h ocpuldfclispeetdfrtetaiino hlspyof philosophy of tradition the for presented difficulties thinking conceptual Fleck’s in science. the incommensurabilities contention terminological indicate of of bones relevance to the anatomy: noted of such have paradigm We any the of and member styles a Thought been, 2. never Husserl. has later one the that even affirm or out must Heidegger ruled has party. one a she one critical and or or past, he be, the Nietzsche in if cannot a Thus, critique One of science. eschew about perspective must anything” believe, philosophical “knowing to the as led taken be be only to can is one science, of philosopher fdul ox fetdb en fa l-o-efc i”o h ae ti relevant a is It game. kind the a on been gossip) “in” have all-too-perfect (or well an evidence may of hoax of means Sokal’s bit by that effected here hoax, emphasize double to of essential is it But friends. oa’ w rsmto lk hto i oernwe olau tvnWeinberg) Steven colleague renowned more set-up. his of academic good that thoroughly trivially (like too “cooked”—a presumption Almost was own cases. Sokal’s have hoax friendly what the such or friendly seems scientist, in it or or work true, humanist at be social expert, thing Ross’s to or only think such at review—blind to the or party than be from vetting better a you—would of know follows at kind should editors any wife nothing know that current who not his Academics evidence. met exactly circumstantial Sokal because that Ross, home—relevant Andrew enthusiast, logical scientism B hogotteps etr,bt rtc n rpnnso cec lk aebeen have alike science of proponents and critics both century, past the Throughout without not if important is it culture, scientific of theories social of context the In uthwergosteedfcliswr—n,i ag esr,rmi—sbest remain—is measure, large in were—and, difficulties these egregious how Just noeae ofiec nteutmc fcretpyia cec sa okin work at is science physical current of ultimacy the in confidence overawed An . E . BABICH saota uharpofa h hreo es narlgoscommunity. religious a in deism of charge the as reproof a much as about is hsi h joke the is This scientism 14 htSklwsafin of friend a was Sokal that 16 oilText Social t odi taciia itnefo oenuanced more from distance critical a at it hold —to twr nteoiia ou rbt ftejk as joke the of butt or locus original the in work at , 13 uta twsajk lydo n among and on played joke a was it as just oilText Social dtradmeteoro- and editor 18 ´, The and 17 15 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution] At: 17:40 23 December 2007 urn imdclprdg osntncsaiycnttt nuqaie advance unqualified the reasons, an own micro- constitute Zajic his and classic necessarily for 1982 contended Tsouyopoulos, the not Fleck, (1960) was does on Fleck (see, biology As paradigm century. Fleck’s biomedical 20th human contrast, current early the By the as case of well the decoding science. in as biology even, information of biological and today’s genetics, science, idea of physical of rule) approximates mere increasingly collective science (and the of medical style promise today’s by thought healing reigning the inspired The of genome. chances for support search uncritical re-engineering, oddly its genetic profession’s and deficiencies medical itself same conceptual the crisis—which the in medicine HIV)—and AIDS contra happens modern global charge the than of critical both the Fleck’s practice characteristic given of confirms research illusion workings incidentally optimistic medical the not an to to crisis case, the holism sensitivity scientists be more more medical to attributing much fact or practice, and biologists and, current system limitations by of medical immune face contributions his highlighting the the Fleck, in on in quite perspective found critical generally be a to repeats thought be might at aeil nLdi Fleck collection, important Ludwik the on of limitation Materials conceptual Fact: striking a noting by seen nrcaiiy(tlatutlfil eety fteboeia cecst hsielor or biomedical ideal the with of this terms neglect and to to this science coming for sciences for reasons of biomedical implications the image) than the the important logicized are of More science (the recently) science. of a fairly mathematization image has until the iconic so least the be with should (at of Fleck’s do this to intractability essay function Why to key single knowledge. very the deal scientific a the of and as not good Fleck, science comprehension For for on 1986). metaphor any thought medical Schnelle, philosophical shows both or & science Fleck collection (Cohen of to dimension pathbreaking times responses biological recent scholarly still in leading this profiling and in as time well own as his 1960 in to 1934 from dating fFeksagmnssest aebe mosbe vni yptei collection sympathetic a in even impossible, reception. been his have advancing to to dedicated seems arguments Fleck’s of .7) e o lc a h ocpulshm ihnwihwaee a observed was observed: whatever [1935], so which be 1986 within to (Fleck, schema able the observation” conceptual be medieval (as the to would a was superstition relationship noted that Fleck on or “assert positive and for perspective not, any Key prejudice could medieval 73). have one by p. the not that blinded that countered did was Fleck claimed scientist Belief”), world often of is natural “Age or, so-called it the Hooke, perspective Although science of of objectivist case absurd. standard, modern observation the This Fleck in telescope). in for microscope, the case, the advance was Galileo’s (through in empirical look canonically a main more taking literally the by modernity—whereby proceeded benightedly into the with eruption break a as science medical 1991). Lewontin, see ihu onainlbcgon nbooy h ako eitrn h ulscope full the registering of task the biology, in background foundational a Without okn n eiga httm ifrdfo h rsn a,bti ol be would it but day, present the from differed time that a at seeing and Looking modern of emergence triumphalist the of story standard the challenges Fleck hnloiga oe n ol e nywa n ol n in find could one what only see could one 74) p. bone, observations; [1935], such a 1986 of (Fleck, need … at them, books intellectual study any looking and lacked 16th cemeteries simply when the of Ages in] neighbourhood Middle scientist the the [A in … but bones Renaissance. find the during could only century sleep his from himself ino naivete of sign ´t o hn htamno hs aswsale,adroused and asleep, was days those of man a that think , nldn nls rnltoso lc’ w essays own Fleck’s of translations English including 19 RMFLECK’S FROM ned in Indeed, ˇ k 92 nmdr imdclprogress, biomedical modern on 1992; ek, unobserving onto n Fact and Cognition DENKSTIL understanding eivlpito iwa an as view of point medieval singular OKH’ PARADIGM KUHN’S TO , aslaec (i.e. agency causal h xeto that exception the lc’ thought. Fleck’s onto and Cognition 79 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution] At: 17:40 23 December 2007 rms ntteraiy fscooyt h egto eial ahmtc or mathematics veritable a of height the to science. sociology of sake of the for reality) structure was methodological the science, of (not called And philosophy to frames”. he promise proper “scientific as what thinking his or to for well renders disciplinary uncritical, addressed what as epistemically specific is which be within anthropology concern, to articulated Fleck’s including practice are and studies, themselves expression they theoretical science in 74). to tend contrary, p. sociology, the approaches [1935], on 1986 disciplinary as, (Fleck, just Such us” alien, to inexplicable, is alien “what inessential, is that him thinking concludes for own Fleck is scholar, his us, medieval to the importance with of modern the Contrasting own. dmrtdntigls miiu hntemtra ilci fsinei eland real in cultures and science of cultural of range specific dialectic and material history in practice. the same communities research that than communal such that ambitious ineluctably show to less to nothing interior sought adumbrated thought Fleck of context, historical styles such terize steronitisclymdea rocptoswr oteaaoit fps times. past of own anatomists preoccupations us our the to medieval to from unquestionable were such as preoccupations see because, and medieval We as intrinsically views invisible own as medieval their are as views erroneous before contemporary Fleck, own “fact” putatively our beyond a perspective, such as such convictions). (nor, as out they such so “incorrigible” pointing alter decisively, not to simply more was able could to, this been need explain, have that not to eyes “see” did placed then-contemporary to They best the themselves rib. are that for a historians “knew” lacked check simply scientific species not on physician convictions human could or religious the anatomist of of 15th-century influence male or the to 14th- relating the example perceptions, further a take To ruling the discoveries: of accompany as discoveries that scientific interests of in much shifts as story the the and tell interests books very those Fleck, For 80 nrtopc,h edGra ny“al” ewscmeld sh loemphasizes, also he work as own compelled, his was than for he important preparation “badly”, the only less of German English-language one read part he no of as retrospect, and was context in scholarship it insular own all, his the on of at in part Fleck as able Fleck’s about 1935), read are talk who we Kuhn to Thomas why science of is philosophy this and paradigm a Famously, of genesis the Kuhn: 3. hlspy.B eetn ntehsoia usino huh tlsadterelevance the and styles thought of and question (theory historical justification precisely the scientific of on and (research) reflecting discovery By scientific philosophy). of limits logical the h tutr fSinicRevolutions Scientific of Structure The B lc a o ine fsca tde fkoldeo cetfi utr e se. per culture scientific or knowledge of studies social of pioneer a not was Fleck lc’ on sthat is point Fleck’s ‘ develop will there modified) ancient bones trans. certain 76, such p. of of [1935], because physiological one 1986 important semine or from were ex which morphological, planta they to ontogenetic, time according the that myths from at system osseous But interest the outside viewpoint. little speak, to of so are, and they enumer- currently and textbooks: today’s describing in chapters long so-called find the we ating books anatomy 17th-century In . E . BABICH collective ’ omnte ftogtadteeegn rprista charac- that properties emergent the and thought of communities h opeebd oapa tteLs uget (Fleck, Judgment. Last the at appear to body complete the sasesamoidea ossa contemporary epistemology h eei n eeomn faSinicFact Scientific a of Development and Genesis The ntmclpecuain r scomparatively as are preoccupations anatomical as hc r ipsdo ihafwsentences few a with of disposed are which Kh,17 16].Bcue sKh reports Kuhn as Because, [1962]). 1970 (Kuhn, 22 , rocptosonly preoccupations hc swyh ne pb lvtn the elevating by up ended he why is which 21 hseitmlgclcnenreflects concern epistemological This because 20 hyaentour not are they sicut (Fleck, Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution] At: 17:40 23 December 2007 n omns tef lotlk h hnamo eorc nteUSA. socialism the of in regimes democracy political of the phantasm of the extirpation like the almost to itself, corresponds communism long war the and cold in extinct the become of the have rather multifarious end century, that but species last the communism, biological the about varied or of the or course socialism of like threat” many so forms “communist psychoanalytic like political the a because of about of dimensionality nuanced language complex more the and become in have communist we implicit or because projection socialist not the is war—that about cold hear longer no we olcie) o rbe ftasain h rbe orsod otepolitical the entailing 1960s) to early and corresponds 1950s problem the through the 1940s the translation, (from era of Kuhn’s problem of restrictions a Not collective]). nhs17 nrdcint Fleck’s to introduction such 1976 needed Kuhn his And in science. in revolution or change a scientific of course historical the fSinicRevolutions Scientific of Fact a Scientific a of Development and Pls-netd emn(hsi ilaigasrino unspr—sFuller life part—as Kuhn’s 60n.) of Kuhn’s p. circumstances 2000, historical on the (Fuller, assertion surveying work behalf, misleading and Kuhn’s on a claim the is repeats (this German “Polish-inflected” Fleck. re-read and read to a ese ohv ie n otnso hi w,aatfo n fe le otheir to alien often and from apart own, their of fortunes and lives have originators. like to words seen art, be of may works Like was, fallacy. authorial paraphrase Kuhn’s a such that only do, because I but Fleck’s as ogy translating effectively claims, and from one derived Denkstil/Denkkollektiv radically, construction periphrastic more a is if, “paradigm” And 1950s the Kuhn, stands. of study, climate incommensurability political Fleck’s the of in have relevance that, not suppose manifest to the exaggeration an despite it and think not do I But 90 ral note17sad ls oigteet nusn n unmarked and unsung an late to the if there lifestyles, in and place coming fashion take alas, in to change and, began and world that 1970s a 1950s change the saw the The dead-end) characterizing into fear. repression (really of in repressive intellectual climate 1960s exactly era and had this virulent McCarthy nevertheless social the expressed it the still Stalinism, the 1960s including not If the of was regarded. and brave reflected Much the unquaintly justice and war parallels. then free criminal the cold was of it the to the land the as as of art Tower known climate from Ivory world the academy—or post-war everything the proper, dominating of America McCarthyism era In the war. during world. ideological cold expression vanished of found Fleck’s work as constellation intellectual vantage distant postmodern, intensifying as than seems more an new, century the 21st in from regarded the that book of era an Fleck’s in rife upon circumstances happened Kuhn a,t rpoeu ntetasainof translation the in up one trip to say, fFeksiflec nKh hni si nls otxs i o ul rdtFleck. credit fully not did contexts, English in is it McCarthyism. than of Kuhn inanity on the influence Fleck’s beyond of evolved we’ve that mean quite not does tutr utbcuei a tews nvial,a unhmefrgtyemphasizes rightly himself Kuhn as unavailable, otherwise was it because just structure eerhplmss,itrrtv raue rbcgon tutr for structure background or armature, interpretive palimpsest, research h rbe fctn lc’ rcdn o unhdls od ihFleck’s with do to less had Kuhn for precedent Fleck’s citing of problem The nKh’ ae h uhrhmefeepie h os seto h so-called the of aspect worst the exemplifies himself author the case, Kuhn’s In unstm pne r-a n atm itr n i rca n formative and crucial his and history wartime and pre-war spanned time Kuhn’s un ti elkon fas oevrlnl setdi emnlnug studies German-language in asserted virulently more also if known, well is it Kuhn, noe lc’ ae otepcal o i od:ti sweem li of claim my where is this words: his not especially most name, Fleck’s invoked 26 xrsig uta unmitis h ain oeo Fleck’s of core salient the maintains, Kuhn as just Expressing, , , hswsntbcueKh i o nesadFeksterminol- Fleck’s understand not did Kuhn because not was this rvdn neatydpoal ersi eiefrarticulating for device heuristic deployable exactly an providing 23 u oesgicn hnsc antkn edn sthat is reading painstaking a such than significant more But threat 28 , frteei o“as red,a agaeteachers language as friend”, “false no is there —for h oino togtsye rsne unwith Kuhn presented style” “thought a of notion the fscaimcmuimhsbe aqihd The vanquished. been has socialism/communism of eei n eeomn faSinicFact Scientific a of Development and Genesis Denkstil RMFLECK’S FROM paradigm e impossibile per togtsye or style] [thought threat DENKSTIL (or t s h agaeo the of language the use —to not huh style thought , vnhdh ihdto wished he had even possible. OKH’ PARADIGM KUHN’S TO npltc.Bti today, if But politics. in Denkkollektiv or h Structure The hermeneutics h Genesis The 24 [thought u this But . 27 , could 81 25 ) Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution] At: 17:40 23 December 2007 sFle ulnsi nhsonsuyo unadtedvlpeto unsown Kuhn’s of it development the as and itself. much Kuhn academy as of the study of contradict culture own not broader his the does in This in book, it Kuhn’s legacy influence impatience. of outlines “genesis”) academic choleric Fleckian Fuller very fundamental, own as (or circumstances a his contextual the of to complements terms reaction (Baltas in “anger” must reflexive actions word reader repeated impoverished his most hermeneutically Kuhn’s 323)—articulating most of the relevance the even in note Kindi, at And Vassili overfrank, and reflections. revealingly Gavroglu, autobiographical Structure own Since brittle Kuhn’s Road through sometimes reverberates uncomprehending, echo times historical same This term hear may “horde”. one socialist time, mindless, much vis-a so veritably belated anxiety after personal, alist, the Even Western is his terms. to of that underscore same introduction echo to all very an the careful these is from writing remained (this distance 1979), Kuhn, and gut (Kuhn, later Russia exactly book the of the Fleck’s 1976, Europe, and of in Eastern translation Curtain And of Iron China. evil the today) inscrutable left propaganda, the brainwashing, and like State, Iron words in expressed anxieties enn fo odfn ree oudrtn rt cetacneta constellation conceptual a accept to Fleck. or in understand discovered to first even only or had defend he to or of meaning book, Fleck’s of title German Tatsache wissenschaftliche the US einer to became Entwicklung who referred Kuhn Conant, und it. Germany, Bryant retelling Entstehung James to for President Fleck Commissioner to Harvard introduction mentor, High brief own own his his that of reports proportion great a dedicate to thought precisely or collectives evoked of this language have For The “politics”. choice. would name book of and 1962 styles term to Kuhn’s his attribute became still in paradigm we Kuhn reason, reasons banal terminology. perfectly Fleck’s the to styles”—for refer have adequately not not could could Kuhn that 82 h-at-r-h-at.B ento,a oatsTuoi nelctrpainstakingly interlocutor that of hence Teutonic conviction ideal and stolid Conant’s unchanged him, the as by the instructed betrayed definition, is titular then its By that realism, from Fleck’s positivism called the-facts-are-the-facts. recoiling latterly of naive such: science, title determinedly as of the transcultural bravely, concept philosophy the of a in the of mention in do Conant, denunciation the proposition For spontaneous often to a him. references responded with to borrowed associate work Fleck German such of Conant’s discovery as contexts. his backfired, related reference had borrowed Kuhn after associate, man fprdgsadprdg hfs omladrvltoayscience. plainly revolutionary they and what normal instead as spoke shifts, “discovered” and paradigm just terminology are and Fleck’s Facts paradigms eschewed “develop”. Kuhn of debacles, is such do Sidestepping to are. able are they thing thing h hlspyo cec a ob on nthe in found be to has science of philosophy the keigKh’ hruhgigdpnec nFeki id n utda the of] se draw per must concept science. one [the of for mind, presupposition in Scha key Fleck Lothar the As that on conclusion such. dependency obvious as thorough-going science Kuhn’s of “keeping philosophy in ideas same B ohn u h hntmstesle aebrht h nap ong fthe of coinage unhappy the to birth gave themselves then-times the but Nothing u hsgnssepan h unhmefwsnvral dqaeyt pcf the specify to adequately able never was himself Kuhn why explains genesis this But enough significant found Kuhn that anecdote the recalling worth is it context this In . paradigm Tatsachen E . BABICH 32 nyalc fhsoia akrudspitcto wa h emn call Germans the (what sophistication background historical of lack a Only sdsc agrul oddtrsa togtcletvs—r“thought collectives”—or “thought as terms loaded dangerously such used aogwaee te esn hr a lohv enfrteterm. the for been have also may there reasons other whatever —among r“at”ddnta uhhv a ntiglk gnss n h last the and “genesis” a like anything was have such as not did “facts” or Kh,20) nKh’ neve ihAitdsBla,Kostas Baltas, Aristides with interview Kuhn’s in 2000), (Kuhn, contra ` vsteiaeo h cletv”a h anti-individu- the as “collective” the of image the -vis h ocp of concept the reactive 31 tas xlisteprle eitnet these to resistance parallel the explains also It ecin natm fteprni and paranoia the of time a in reactions ahistorical Entstehung 29 ,i osiuns”o philosophy of consciousness” n ¨ and e 17,p 5 reflects: 25) p. (1977, fer ovrainwt Ger- a with conversation Entwicklung tal. et 30 , 00 p 255– pp. 2000, revolution teone —the The Die in Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution] At: 17:40 23 December 2007 otxulpiayo ro ntecs ftemro-ednn aetrsuo the fact upon of matter polished turns differential but gaze historically glass of the mirror-reddening The made of the not made prejudice. are of be mirrors Whiggish to case ancient perhaps that and the ought that sensitivity in issue error gender critical of of primacy advantage contextual cultural the transmute ie h rcsl o-uuaie(o-ier hrce fsinicpors in progress scientific error. of past character of character (non-linear) cumulative the non-cumulative science to empha- of precisely Fleck contrast history Thus where revolutions. the for given patent thing have nor sized advances could non-revolutionary scientific himself this unbroken Fleck neither says that outlines Shapin reasons historical 1). p. same the 1996, (Shapin, revolution scientific rsol’ con ftemro-ednn aeo h esraigwoman. menstruating the concerning of debates gaze present-day in mirror-reddening mentioned the never of is account that one Aristotle’s is question contextual small his begin can Shapin effects—Steven and reception on its volume of Kuhn’s the history of on hermeneutic Nietzsche wake and the Fleck, In Ludwik Mach, Ernst truth error: science. of of of relativity history importance a empirical The as the 4. revolution of of dynamic idea complex the the of to influence contrary enduring the very permitted so have “fact” could science of phy Wissenschaft uuesinictuh aterr eergre ssinicrsre,ram xcl not exactly realms of reserves, resources scientific important as forgotten. critically regarded be the were to errors represented Past past truth. the scientific of future “errors” so-called the scientific tives, of perception our as context-dependent as precisely is truth. error of perception Our h cetfi ocp fwa etdyrgr stedsaeentity, disease the as regard today which without we context what assump- errant erring of and very the preoccupations concept that than astrological than scientific less indispensable Fleck, the nothing less For of nothing such. reading truth articulated as sustained scientific tions astrology a of offers history example, the same for of the of, reading of historical facts Fleck’s the progress, and scientific of ideal the hc o hi w atcalneAittesptne rjdcs(anes 2002, (Saunders, readings prejudices readings, patented present-day Aristotle’s of challenge sexism part the own 304–305). decries pp. their rightly for overview which one of author o aua ido eal odto fbdl aac rsai u osrcinor construction a but stasis or reflects balance health bodily of fantasy. of the ideal condition comfortable below, the default see a argued, or shall even has kind the we Canguilhem natural as name Georges a address, we as not also what for, questions health, of These of conceptual, discovery such. definition and scientific as genesis the entity historical disease for concrete modern a requisite where was stand: development to contextual come have not could such, fwa enwrgr sps ros o lc,a o ahadfrNezce tis it important Nietzsche, this for much Popperians. is—however and latter-day truth dismay Mach what to for say expected to as be is may Fleck, it corollary as For post-Kantian sure, is errors. radically be error and past we what inevitably say can as own to Nor to regard our difficult inheres. impossible in as now or found is we consists be it it not what would what perspective of error in historical greater or the same lies that error the indeed, true from where because exactly history know of dustbin the o lc,a,mr btuey o rs Mach, Ernst for abstrusely, more as, Fleck, For otk ute lutaino hshsoia otx,i srlvn htthe that relevant is it context, historical this of illustration further a take To o ohFekadMc,a cetssdsgigrsac osblte n perspec- and possibilities research designing scientists as Mach, and Fleck both For ihrsett itr tef nenlt h icpieo itr n philoso- and history of discipline the to internal itself) history to respect with h cetfi Revolution Scientific The 40 35 u ht nFeksnm,Ia eeivkn s“otx”would “context” as invoking here am I name, Fleck’s in what, But ycnrs ihteielo ieesyruiepresentism, routine timelessly of ideal the with contrast By h tutr fSinicRevolutions Scientific of Structure The 38 ihtegaddcaainta hr a no was there that declaration grand the with RMFLECK’S FROM DENKSTIL error metal a o ob odme to condemned be to not was : rne opr ivr etc. silver, copper, bronze, ta s nenlt the to internal is, —that OKH’ PARADIGM KUHN’S TO 37 presentist ..spii,as syphilis, i.e. 36 hc is which account 39 33 truth The 83 34 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution] At: 17:40 23 December 2007 ytm ydtiigahsoyo hrpui esrsweefrFekteesetthing easiest the this Fleck explored it nervous for Fleck and measures—where to to immune itself. is therapeutic the all of system blood, of history approaches what nervous the a infection), skin, the detailing of the symptomatic by that of of system) (diseases beyond (i.e. array locus profiles and in is disease (the varied blood of differ skin it constellation the the a manifestations is that of its essential disease requiring disease is a and pleonastic therefore than stages of branched Rather and different (profiles). not kind but at (but individuals), the perhaps non-linear differently is different syphilis, itself a syphilis of manifests have because in syphilis we constructs, only) work accounts erroneous or scientific eras, These necessarily changing discovery. the historical this of different development for to but way syphilis necessary throughout the of errors on understanding changing conceptual detours are “happy” scientific regrettable we or modern merely the what essential not of were in prejudice. discovery mistaken ultimate male truth as the Greek, of regarded ancient now locus disease indeed, possible of or, good the error a to as of been just have response question not, and does theoretical to the years, in debate persuaded merely recent this raise as in on (already) a commentator visitors not, recent well to little would most Lascaux so the as at that scientist even caves is is, day acidity the That that closed on. the same have so acidity effects of breath—that same its course that respiration human the of construct of the changes, in factors humidity hormonal in acidity the only longer-term mirrors, alterations the not personal circadian notably of including undergoes case and atmosphere to the perspiration, not an in and albeit relevantly atmosphere, also upon relevant, ambient tarnish but very mirrors climate the metal reason polished) a to this newly specifies (like for exposure fashioned duly Newly of is Aristotle oxidize. limits it that mirrors sobering metal question, (and the from this fashioned that to on are characteristic attending commentators special they without the moment (even metallurgy)—have alloys the ancient their of and understanding metals today’s such all And 84 fspii htmd t cetfi td n eouinpriual difficult—and particularly resolution and disease study the of scientific character its pleonastic are made developmentally as syphilis that the integument of was (the syphilis symptoms It skin of observable blood. the the specifically of and disease primary, manifest) a where between locus the connection symptomatic for a the exactly “discover” alchemy or of identify importance to similar the argues—as, the and (and Fleck retraced of of required, has (qua was discovery sake Principe itself transition vein, scientific spirochaete this similar the the Exactly a with of itself. in not identify the path fact to was and scientific erring so of modernity veritably disease and emergence towards the to the progress but limit scientific of to vector/agent) of think disease lore sons. we history the that mythological the on entity in visited astrological, disease track are current religious, fathers mistaken the a the the of merely sins insight, behind the as this blood, stand For the through well transmitted be may could of instauration and latest the persists as one-size-fits- disease) conviction. health This gene—one causal same. (one (mis- and this the project or identify genome for illness singular the cures to a for for of for enthusiasms continue search search our we scheme to in and disease, diseases all spirochaete all of the after of quasi-syn- theory with even aetiology syphilis a Fleck, decisive agent account) after interposed the Fleck’s Even Fleck on disease. to takenly inquiry, the challenges of historical decisive character this progressive the of the of context account the chronic In thing. another B u lc rusdfeety ti h eta hsso lc’ td htconceptions that study Fleck’s of thesis central the is It differently. argues Fleck But sasorefo evn ne h ino eeeliflec,spiii disease syphilitic influence, venereal of sign the under heaven, from scourge a As . E . BABICH cure not a disease, sbokn)tedvlpeto hmsr Picp,19)i order 1998)—in (Principe, chemistry of development the blocking) as understanding ti l ae n nalispsil rfie squite is profiles possible its all in and cases all in it brand-new irr,such mirror), not Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution] At: 17:40 23 December 2007 nti,a neeyhn,adsoeo cliaigerra h ohrwm of womb mother the as error “cultivating of spoke and everything, in knowledge” as be to this, was error in that research) medical to indispensable the research, HIV of context prejudice. the in and recurs anxiety still sexual that of argument taboo stylish politically a as only, Ia so. do Acknowledgements (as to paradigm us ruling the moves of style) our limits retracing thought the normal, when scientific with us of encounters current for or key the matter useful anomalies, a sufficient a hold after might be steps path abandoned to an the surrounding out riches “revolutionary” turns revolution as ideally contention whereby less designating solving). the or science, problem is by more scientific of a (this eliminates ideal be affair can programme everyday “ordinary”) science (Kuhn’s progressive of banal process Laudan’s heuristically the useful—once and that or be departure, algorithmic influences. styles of to unanticipated thought point yet Fleckian out scientific as them turn by call might altered we been they if have that nonetheless matter paradigms) are recognition (no Kuhnian which perspectives prudential bent, sclerotic the or dominant broken, of artefacts, out forgotten kept and discarded of collection nnmu eeesfrtercomments. their for referees anonymous otogns n muesse hntecneto h ies niya such. as entity disease the of same, concept the the of the than crisis upon more system global focusing ongoing immune pleonastic specification, the its greater and and requiring in organism as AIDS specifically understand host of such, to wake as begun the have disease we in the which, of and aetiology character, the explain to insufficient lc rud saeut odfeetaebtenbceiladvrlifcinand precisely infection a viral in posed and so be bacterial (notably, to between response remain differentiate immune questions of to these indices adequate specific more), as as argued, leukocytes same Fleck those of changes ocp ftesrneyusal ies niyta lc isl npretyscientific perfectly spirochaete. in scientific the himself the with Fleck identify of that finally development entity not the disease “bad did in unstable or sobriety strangely “befouled” element the of indispensable of concept requisite, concept specification) a Fleck’s was use that (to blood” “unscientific” the of context. terms upon) insisted Fleck point research and scientific hpbtenspii n I?Sc usin drs h rbe finfection—and of problem relation- Why the a health— disease? address there this public is questions of perspective, Such and stages all-too-esoteric HIV? later immunology and and the contemporary syphilis progress to a between untreated, affected, for ship if Or still those syphilis, cent? of ought system, does the per cent nervous we How/why 25 the skin, per whole? and with a 25 may the do as approximately to we of organism in changes what, the disease serological And fluid, by a spinal blood? characterized has the disease the a serologist, with has do the ask, to to asks dermatology, what, of concept, province disease modern the orlt o nyteeeae on fluoye u lo(oFekage,though argued, Fleck (so in also tradition but research a leukocytes yielded of not count has elevated significantly the this, only not correlate cec icvrdb lc u hc efie oinstitutionalize) to failed he which but Fleck by discovered science m lc hsmitie frtesk fpeevn h aecmlxt ethought he complexity same the preserving of sake the (for maintained thus Fleck uwkFekscnito,wihh hrdwt rs ah a httecomplex the that was Mach, Ernst with shared he which conviction, Fleck’s Ludwik our of certain be can we if only true, are truths our if only is Critically—logically—it twserr ..tevr roeu dao cug,mtpoial xrse in expressed metaphorically scourge, a of idea erroneous very the i.e. error, was It rtflt ae .MAlse o i osrciesgetosa ela othree to as well as suggestions constructive his for McAllister W. James to grateful 46 :peevn aterrlk natcfl ftig u fsye rabasement a or style, of out things of full attic an like error past preserving ): nnuce in 41 RMFLECK’S FROM oeciial ntrso h eeomn of development the of terms in critically More . 42 o lc,wowsoeo h rtto first the of one was who Fleck, For 44 DENKSTIL conserved atrooia gnyaoewas alone agency Bacteriological leukergy complex OKH’ PARADIGM KUHN’S TO Nezcewn further went (Nietzsche , h rnho medical of branch the 43 te characteristic other t mhsz the emphasize (to 85 45 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution] At: 17:40 23 December 2007 Notes 86 0 oklas(95 a xlrdterlto ewe h ocpino cec ihntentrland natural the within science of conception the between relation the explored has (1975) Kockelmans 10. .B nomnuaiiyhr n nwa olw,Irfrt h ipebdeso tbtenFleck’s between fit of badness simple the to refer I follows, what in and here incommensurability By 2. his of significance the not explores Fleck to devoted literature the of part greatest the that instructive is It 1. .Sea ink 19) ae hscambtohratoswocudb rw pnt cothis echo to upon drawn be could who authors other but claim Scha this 3–36), pp. makes (1986, (1992), Schnelle Winneke too Stefan See (1982). 9. Schnelle see details, biographical For 8. Scha See 3. .Frti esn lc’ rtclnto ftogtcletvs sitisct h rgeso cec ssuch, as science of progress the to intrinsic as collectives, thought of notion critical Fleck’s reason, this the For read 7. have Institute, Warburg the of context heady the in Gombrich on Fuller notably most Some, 6. of context the in emerges it as “style” of meaning the discussing article (1993) Hart’s Joan follows Fuller 5. Wo Heinrich See 4. n hlspyo cec hwvr o tr,seHcigsonrfrnels,Hcig 93 .278). p. 1983, philosophy Hacking, analytic list, in reference it own more Hacking’s to the see addressed to start, refer literature a not vast for do correspondingly I (however, thus the science I of and Kuhn. philosophy sense term to and Hacking the reference the which with also of in precisely is sense use it general This specialized characterizes the science. and translation. 12–14) of incommensurability pp. English philosophy of 1983, the speaks in (1982, (1981) of day MacIntyre areas of Alasdair one related which practice light no in in scientific the schemata had of conceptual seen that, and dynamic have conceivable terminology communal of never is the might translation it on Fleck the and views [1962]), Indeed corrective, Kuhn’s (1970 deliberate neglect. and Kuhn a Fleck’s of in as between history parallels only the the about rather noticed came but [1935]) progress (1979 scientific Fleck of account philosophical h hoeia aaimfrtesca cecsbttehsoia rcdn o h ae h social The same. the for precedent historical the but sciences only social not constitute the as sciences natural well for the as paradigm some, for 1979), theoretical counter-intuitively however 1977, the that, (1976, show 276– to pp. Baldamus sciences, (1982). 1972, social and Tsouyopoulos Baldamus, (1977), also also See Merton see (1978). (1971), 213–233; Baldamus proportional pp. Ohe directly Fleck and 1979, this enough) cites on Schnelle In (Baldamus, (ironically work also same. was work to work the Winneke Fleck’s Schnelle Kuhn’s of 302). set to of directions first success indebtedness other who the its as Baldamus, scholar influence to For well the place. Fleck’s as as first Baldamus influence who of the Wilhelm that scholars in acknowledgement includes of both diffident Winneke range of range, broad ultimately dimensions latter a the Kuhn’s lists explored of Winneke not, book. independently than 1935 more Fleck’s rather of translation have, English an about bringing Scha Lothar include contention 6–11). pp. (1987, Dorobiski and 9–34), pp. (1983, (1998). Golinski further ol aebe ncuae u oisathsoia rvnnei h pee soitdwt Heinrich with associated spheres limitation references the a all general, in such documenting in where provenance of especially and, art-historical name, habit references its specific to such the a Due making Wo But to inaccurate. of tied Mannheim. been makes commonly way to have 60n.) not only p. would are allude thought the (2000, knowledge expressly and not common Fuller not paradigm are is Steve that does of allusions Kuhn, Fleck use and of that biography references Fleck’s his one’s fact between In the made Mannheim. of be to much to debt distinction its the emphasizing style, to alludes specifically (1979) otait h oiat itrclyielgclielo cetfi eisadteaheeeto Western of the achievement the that and Harre genius patent scientific See is metaphoricity. of individualism. inspiring ideal it liberal ideological and such), historically wide dominant, as “style” the a of character contradicts enjoyed conception human now, affine and an as politics on then art, reliance “style”, Nietzsche’s qualifying of note (variously concept we philosophy if his addition, Harwood In in “Art 51–70). see Fuller, pp. (for appearance, 2000, science (Fuller, its and art makes between term relation Fleck’s less which is it) in style of the of parsing context Fuller’s connection disputes scientific on (1993). the the literally, Fuller Fuller, and and for (tellingly 55n.). correspondence p. Gombrich’s ergo Ernst 60n.), 2000, of p. fortunes (Fuller, progressive (Fuller, the Kuhn 1860–1863). tracing Mannheim for than (Semper, thought important and study (1755). Fleck’s Winckelman Panofsky two-volume of Joachim Johann Semper’s relevance between in to use correspondence in 1860 the already the to contexts, arguably was aesthetic back style or of dated art-historical conception be related In a may (1988). Indeed, “style” Bauer of Wolfgang essay “style”, notion this “style”. of in of although conception reading (1992), art-historical his Hacking for too, See, (1952) below. Crombie note on following draws the Hacking see usage: 1925 Mannheim’s B hn naoyosrvee o aln teto otene omk hsdsicina xlctone. explicit an distinction this make to need the to attention calling for reviewer anonymous an thank . ¨ E fi n li Riegl, Alois and lfflin . BABICH ¨ e n cnlesitouto oteShkm dto fFek(96.Tadu Trenn Thaddeus (1986). Fleck of edition Suhrkamp the to introduction Schnelle’s and fer da fprpcie(ulr p 2f) o oecnetal iutddsuso oho that of both discussion situated contextually more a For 52ff.). pp. (Fuller, perspective of ideal ¨ fi 11)adLdi ole 12) n,framr eetoeve fthe of overview recent more a for and, (1921), Coellen Ludwig and (1915) lfflin Stil ¨ ´ e,Shel,ad ned oetK etn h a eiiei finally in decisive was who Merton, K. Robert indeed, and, Schnelle, fer, 20)adZmn(02;seas ia 19) u,byn hs see this, beyond But, (1995). Ziman also see (2002); Ziman and (2002) a a rae n xrsl nedsilnr urnybeyond currency interdisciplinary expressly and broader far a had ϭ cec” sta ewe cngah n structure and iconography between that as Science”) ¨ e n Schnelle and fer Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution] At: 17:40 23 December 2007 4 hsisgti adyarslato eeteet,bti snwumsaal ntewk ftedramatic the of wake the in unmistakable now is it but events, recent of resultant a hardly is insight This 24. hermeneutic a requires itself that competence language a indicates self-deprecation Kuhn’s that Note 23. idea, very the by abrogated is [1947]). knowledge (1986 collective Fleck of idea of Fleck’s reflections in that concluding observed only the have not sociologists of Fleck Certain of substance 1). role the 22. Chap. the is (1995, of This Dear dismissal cavalier particular, 21. impatiently in Fuller’s See for 20. reasons the of one be may This (1999). Latour 19. (1999), did Hacking news 18. evening the if science—as on article an vet to asked be not xv–xvii). pp. scientists (1999, that happen limits—MacIntyre it its take could credulity—and I How that this underline 17. of here (1991). discussion I Sorrel specific And a 16. attention. author’s for the See to 15. detail relevant rather this brought Fuller Steve 14. 3 e oli 20,p.2–9.As e io 20,p.2327,adHarre and 203–217), pp. (2002, Zimon see Also 25–29). pp. (2002, Toulmin See 13. a For (1913–1959). Duhem (1952), Crombie [1949]), (1957 pro-science Butterfield own his (1985), make Schaffer to and efforts pained Shapin certainly 12. uncomprehending, less or more Latour’s Bruno See 11. tetdb h rieo h ult fhsFec hc ercie rmParisians. he from as received French he in further which ability French irony much his as self-deprecating of just France of quality in required point the II then diffidence—a of War do autobio- praise World characteristic to own the after able scientist’s and his by and read was a as attested during likewise expert, with time illiteracy, he military his that disavows from a reports of different similarly as also recollection likewise he, not Kuhn his was what note of in we which today where clear way, philosophers facility make same American a reflections the among haltingly, graphical In routine very all. more at French far German case spoke read the to from able is thus being it and as then from different the the follow articulation, concerned of not Fleck development does the for collective research and style a say associated with to its identification description. is Wasserman and mindless Fleck’s that or the collective thinking genesis, (like thought Tribal the fact a “fact”. this discovery, single of emergent an describes and a notion of research himself of the ownership of Fleck emergence But the dynamic ownership. the book. for or influential his science “Salvarsan” such in in of from test) struggle possession deriving observable the power very concerning and the struggle authority and the property” and “intellectual idea of were, advocates. it himself as Fuller science of studies social of sort or very unmasked the an for blow, (1997). for also one Babich See but as in erroneous. Kuhn appeared even evolution, version and and earlier overstated, an astronomy misleading, (2002a); Sagan) as Babich happily Carl discussion, as fuller of evolution just and think or scientists overview engineering do other genetic by let’s about debunked things (please speculative even saying happily or scientists present constantly not hearsay. is Hearsay one faith. if perfect including, on gossip, works of Latour’s piece of perfect any a or report, this (1998) (1999). Golinski Latour self-revisionism, see certain this, a Beyond for (1995). accounts Ziman also See oeta ovcinbtvtladciia cint aki up. it dust, back the in to line as action politic conservative book, critical up, a his and for end drawing of vital not will instaurations, end but of later it word the conviction its sensibility, at conclusions a than in recommendation and more yielding as becomes fine respect earlier Toulmin’s before, focus pluralistic its like modest ever in and that up, a as integrity ends but Until unfathomed book 2002a), inclusion Jardine’s weight. as Babich, selective feeble (see leaves reception and which account or and exclusion strategy of limited iceberg-chipping reflection out book, an ultimately, needed hence 1991 own): inevitably and his Gadamer’s of (like of unnamed realm names (re)edition others) iconic the recent many larger the so the in (and co-opting us while Heelan does A. he Patrick see as (1996), like turn interpretive chemistry, Richardson Harre and hermeneutic and scientific Toulmin, history a to Giere as of a endorse attention tradition an see origins to such more mainstream [1991]) science, the that see same noted (2000 specialized, of and be the borders, philosophy should a alchemy it in of socio-historical caution, for of context a history crossing history and As internal 2000). the science, (1994), (1999, the the Friedman of Cohen of of For reading overview see (1998). history general a Principe contexts, the a For Duhem’s its For of (1998). of (1995). and Golinski account Dear reception revolution also influenced the scientific See attending ethnographically the 175–221). limitations pp. of (1989, peripheral history Babich the see and focus, Duhem historical evolve of not to discussion thus expected comparative 1999). are be (Latour, and not possible future. as ought sciences the clear sciences natural in as themselves such the orientation of that of variants means versions logicized also or developed mathematical This less more them. or increasingly to primitive prior more developmentally not are sciences okpreutn h iial antempioohclhbtso evn otnna philosophers continental leaving of habitus philosophical mainstream similarly the perpetuating book RMFLECK’S FROM ´, DENKSTIL n ia sas htprisJardine permits what also is Ziman and Cosmopolis OKH’ PARADIGM KUHN’S TO Tumn 92,nesfar needs 1992), (Toulmin, ´ 20,p.219–229). pp. (2002, 87 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution] At: 17:40 23 December 2007 5 unddntcei lc eodhsfmu rftr hrceiaino lc’ oka a sa that essay “an as book Fleck’s of characterization prefatory famous his beyond Fleck credit not did Kuhn 25. 88 2 Scha 32. 4 o icsino itsh,seBbc 19) o itsh’ oncinwt ati h context the in Kant with connection Nietzsche’s For (1994). Babich see Nietzsche, of discussion a For 34. continues it ways, many in problematic—and conceptually was science of history the of idea” “very The 33. Scha by expressed reading, dominant the oppose to mean, would This 31. only Fleck in find could Kuhn argues, Nietzsche as just and implies, style thought of notion Fleck’s As Fleck’s 30. (2000). of Fuller relevance lesser 29. the of conviction own his on waver to seems also Scha Fuller by that introduction however comprehensive Note more the 28. too See 27. 6 oehrwt h ocpultnineieti h eihatcoiiso h word the of origins periphrastic the in evident tension conceptual the with Together 26. h ismnto fiesfo lc oKh sflos AsshißihdeBduugFek von Flecks Bedeutung die schließlich “Als sinngema sich follows: die called as vii) Kuhn of p. process to (1970, verblu sociological Fleck Kuhn the fu what explains wurde, from entdeckt 232) in ideas p. Kuhn “ideas” (1979, of same Baldamus dissemination those community”. situating scientific 2000 the same. the and the of the ideas” of sociology own of events “the my very results of the undecided many by the anticipates afforded regarding “democracy” decision of judicial image and same election that presidential of US limits the of demonstration oeta lc’ oemreal o,a admsepesdit: expressed Baldamus as ( (or, science marketable of more philosophy Fleck’s for than and more in possible style thought lc’ eeto ycmaio ihKh’ w nune hta h eylat uharlac shows reliance a such least, very the opportunism. at his that than influence, prescience own Kuhn’s Kuhn’s with less comparison by reception Fleck’s rshmtco h ata cea(uhal 92 n h eodisgtul rdigKn’ first Kant’s bridging insightfully second the architectonic an and providing 1992) first (Buchdahl, the the to schema such: reasons—oblique as Kantian different science the remain—for of of fundamental both philosophy schematic they its the with if of or in readings here operates account both different useful “received” physics is Two are or that A713/B741–A727/755). science traditional so of levels, (B241/A196; groundwork, philosophy processes objective Kant’s conceptual experimental and of its its theoretical its in owes both of and mathematics on concepts character as assumptions Just defining axiomatic A124–126). or the the (cf. axioms exploits to experience and concedes and integrity both (Bix) experiment) scientific reason (or question of the limitations because epistemological questioning of practice empirical the zeitgeno der an Kritik radikale Flecks h uenpolmo nuto ntePeaet h eodeiino the of edition resolves Kant second mathematics, the and to logic Preface of on the image the in emphasis in induction This its all of effects science. at problem question science of scientific Humean no philosophy the be the entire of would true which design Kant’s as regress), aesthetic of name inductive “The we keystone writes, what ( the he power” both when is and judgment questioning meaning error science. of genesis Kant’s of dynamic as is the critical philosophy regard questioning as The the we 1–13). expressed of pp. what fatally, mindset (1999, and logic logical Babich (specifically, see the the history science, of to the of accounts problematic, shocking theoretical was of exactly styles with idea was thought accord fact the and fact a collectives with historical thought of in former of development) not talk the quip), does if famous combine of it And the Lakatos’s philosophy invention. if to wit, and or the science (to science discovery that argue for scientific could clear of bad of perspective manifestly too philosophy reconstructivist is is the a it and it as between [1991]), remains—although that insist, relationship 2000 tension longer (Jardine, no this disciplinary can warning that the science all-too-conservative shows of and science mild review of Jardine’s recent history believe A to should. are we we if so, be to (1977). “two the as dramatized famously has same. author nothing the and one that between dynamic patent guessed abyss social a have enduring the with not still could in discipline Kuhn the truth developed historian, and the or that a understanding cultures” from established assuming not for further one—in and properly capacity only training be a Kuhn’s by had could was exceeded scientist he ideas what A Fleck of structure. Hence, to received sociology for. regard original with listen and the lay—and to history mistake ears the names Kuhn’s or he overlooked. see, simply to what he eyes of had ‘collective’, he claim term what the the 211n). of p. shares use 2000, he his (Fuller, 2000, by as overtones” (Fuller, “disturbed socialist does psychology as industrial mass he book strong of as its Fleck’s invention with reviewed wavers Bon’s who Le he sociologists” Gustave often perhaps “professional to so and refers he 295n), is p. when that Kuhn for meaning importance of multiplicity 1970). Masterman, the with to (beginning term contributes Kuhn’s trajectory to attributed metonymic and metaphorical rni rtdsuae,d .rezeptionsfa h. d. diskutabel, erst Prinzip B . E ¨ . e hsepiae h eypolmo otmoayaayi hlspyo cec stedominant the as science of philosophy analytic contemporary of problem very the explicates thus fer ¨ BABICH fne eetosrog ne unasdmWr lcsnrslh etntieu Bestandteile solche nur Flecks Werk dem aus Kuhn Indem Rezeptionserfolg. ffenden ¨ß rtkdrrie Vernunft reinen der Kritik e Bedu den ¨ redse eigenma dessen hrte ¨ fisndrsczgrJheapse ißn ud eeKii gmitist [gemeint Kritik jene wurde ließen, anpassen Jahre sechziger der rfnissen ¨ sshnWseshfshlspi]entscha Wissenschaftsphilosophie] ssischen ¨ hig.” , xi) ahrta cec ae oeyo bevto (and observation on solely based science a than Rather Bxiii). ¨ hieVrretn e lcshnGdnegt ueinem zu Gedankenguts Fleckschen des Verarbeitung chtige ¨ e n cnlei lc 18,p.vii–xlvii). pp. (1980, Fleck in Schnelle and fer Wissenschaftstheorie rezeptionsfa ¨ e 17)i i eetoson reflections his in (1977) fer .FrScha For ). ¨ hig rtqeo ueReason Pure of Critique ) ¨ pgn.SeScha See epigone. f n auc im dadurch und rft ¨ e,Kh slittle is Kuhn fer, paradigm ¨ bernahm, , ¨ fer its in Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution] At: 17:40 23 December 2007 B 44. Fleck’s for background requisite the lacked discipline this for non-microbial found or be to ambient co-workers between the relationship that relevant the is on It reflection 43. provocative a for (1993) Lewontin See 42. under more presumably discussions, sociological of number larger the that context its this upon, in acts significant is also It but 304–305ff.). pp. 41. by, (2002, affected Saunders only 40. not is sight of organ “the that is assertion original health Aristotle’s on remark 39. cited often Canguilhem’s of point conception the dynamic is a homeostasis to of obstacle ideal as the perspective contra reified comment and This unitary 38. that abolishing for all was Fleck And thoughtlessly 37. who philosophy, of context. history research the a in in board” generalist drawing one the of to presumption back casual “going the of opposes point This practical the 36. is This 35. A References mu (1992, “Wir Zajicek See writes: oncology. 503) to p. work, 9, Fleck’s Vol. from line (1980, direct Nietzsche a 46. in extended, been has insight same This 45. B B ABICH ABICH ABICH RISTOTLE coßdsErkennens.” des schooß lc ol eiefo ekri muersos.SeChnadShel 18) e loteeditors’ that the also information see more diagnostic (1986); xv–xvii). much Schnelle pp. the and a (1980, Cohen for of Fleck See framework (the index response. to immune conceptual of straightforward tradition preface leukergic most the a from reversal complex the derive lacked such dynamically could unusual only it or Fleck of took an systemic because formation medicine any (in phenomenon precluded the modern it, complex Thus support in understood leukergy). cooperate he funding as as not of science, science would research assured medical scientist), of although research method himself, a for Fleck circumstances that and conception and aetiological epidemiology. an or is disease virulent Fleck’s and concept. factors medical or scientific to refer the concept. to of epistemological diseases development more of hence and construction” “social genesis term factual get the to the understand easy Fleck, not on 89–91). is and pp. a it Foucault 1990, one, of (Aristotle, new influence one” a the is old the mirror an period, the with menstrual if easier fact, their is In during it cloud. them although blood-red into (Canguilhem, of out, look sort luxury” stain women a biological the when on a mirrors, takes is surface clean recover—it mirror extremely and in sick For To fall object. environment. to the of able inconsistencies being the means for 199). tolerance health p. of good 1991, margin a a in is “Health be property: emergent an at as almost truth, or is science disease. to true references a reference Similar believed of 136). with once p. particularly 2000, was philosophy, (Pippin, “what alchemy” of or that literature astrology Nietzsche) the of random. in on cases sought the better like be not false, may is be to (he known viewpoint now presentist the invokes (and historical excellent (1992). An Friedman 1997). (Kerszberg, is Kant account of analytic) interpretation exactly Heidegger’s still in critiques third and ihu en hmevsil lns rscns sacmlxsaerte hnasaebtaigthe betraying state a biological integral than or rather secure hermetically state otherwise complex disease an a to because interior is aspect, element one sickness invading system. agents” but or alien “disease is an such Illness immune carry of (so-called) ill. individuals the presence entity healthy of themselves perfectly disease role agents: being the the infectious without whole, of to presence a attention the increased as more today’s requires 39), organism (p. anticipating the exist” Fleck, and not For Spirochaeta system does disease. by such caused of as disease theory “syphilis ‘the carrier because as formulated problematic be are to statements a not such is Fleck, “Syphilis For writes, pallida’.” 21) p. (1979, Fleck Thus p 304–305). pp. tt nvriyo e okPress). York New of University State etadTasainwt nrdcin oe n Glossary and Notes Introduction, with 89–91. pp. Translation and Text otnna hlspyi h wnit Century Twentieth the in Philosophy Continental ido aalldfiiino h ies ntemn ftescu ahrta aigayhn od with do to anything having than rather socius the of mind the in disease the of definition parallel of kind li hth ae o odn h ies u opitt h ndqayo h lsi germ classic the of inadequacy the to point to but disease the deny to not makes he that claim ,B ,B ,B . . . 19)PrantrlaI 5b3402,i:D G D. in: 459b23–460a23, II naturalia Parva (1990) 19)Tehreetc fahoax, a of hermeneutics The (1997) (1994) 18)Cnietlpioohe fsine ahDhmBcead n .K R. in: Bachelard, Duhem Mach science: of philosophies Continental (1989) itsh’ hlspyo cec:RflcigSineo h rudo r n Life and Art of Ground the on Science Reflecting Science: of Philosophy Nietzsche’s RMFLECK’S FROM omnKnowledge Common Lno,Rulde,p.175–221. pp. Routledge), (London, ¨ sndsIrnlee n flgn sitdrMutter- der ist es pflegen, und lieben Irren das ssen ALLUP Ptroog,Otro rave Press), Broadview Ontario, (Peterborough, DENKSTIL , () p 23–33. pp. 6(2), (Ed.) rsol nSepadDem:A Dreams: and Sleep on Aristotle OKH’ PARADIGM KUHN’S TO EARNEY (Albany, (Ed.) 89 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution] At: 17:40 23 December 2007 F H G F B B F F G B H H H D D B 90 H F B B C D C C H C F C B B B B F F B F ULLER RIEDMAN RIEDMAN RIEDMAN LECK LECK LECK LECK LECK ABICH ABICH ABICH UTTERFIELD UCHDAHL AUER ALTAS ALDAMUS ALDAMUS ALDAMUS ALDAMUS ROMBIE OHEN OHEN OELLEN ANGUILHEM OLINSKI IERE EAR UHEM OROBISKI ART ARRE ACKING ACKING ACKING ACKING B inst Press). Minnesota Hermann). B Press). arc .Hea,S.J. Heelan, A. Patrick abig nvriyPress). University Cambridge p 534–566. pp. p 1–23. pp. boldt-Universita tal et amtd,Arkadienverlag). Darmstadt, nvriyo hcg Press). Chicago of University Press). hoi uwkFlecks, Ludwik theorie h hlspyo cec,Vl 7(odeh,Reidel). (Dordrecht, 87 Vol. Science, of Philosophy the Ofr,Ofr nvriyPes,p.48–66. pp. Press), University Oxford (Oxford, Ciao L nvriyo hcg Press). Chicago of University IL, (Chicago, p 67–78). pp. p 255–323). pp. pseooyadPiooh fSine itsh n h cecsII Sciences the and Nietzsche Science: of Philosophy and Epistemology Suhrkamp). Lno,Hiean,p.276–302. pp. Heinemann), (London, ,P ,J ´ . , ELTING ,L ,L ,L ,L ,L ,W ,R , , ,B ,B ,B , E ,S ,P ..&R & R.N. . ..&S & R.S. . . ..(1994) H.F. . , ,L ,I ,I ,I ,I . . G A., ,J . . . . . 19)EwnPnfk n alMnhi:adaou ninterpretation, on dialogue a Mannheim: Karl and Panofsky Erwin (1993) (Eds) ,M ,M ,M (1995) BABICH . . . . ,A ,W ,W ,W ,W . ..(1952) A.C. 18 [1935]) (1980 ,G 18 13] cetfi bevto n ecpin n C in: perception, and observation Scientific [1935]) (1986 . 18 16] rssi cec,i:C C in: in: science, know, in to Crisis see, [1960]) to (1986 look, To [1947]) (1986 20)Sinea h oko omnt,i:B in: community, a of work the as Science (2002) . (1979) . . . (2000) . (1913–1959) E. (2002b) (Ed.) 18)Fr,Srku,Si:Defraayice n omecihlce ehdn n H. in: Methoden, formgeschichtlichen und formanalytischen Die Stil: Struktur, Form, (1988) . 19)Nezcesciia hoy h utr fsinea r,i:B in: art, as science of culture the theory: critical Nietzsche’s (1999) 18)Lnug,tuhadrao,i:M H M. in: reason, and truth Language, (1982) 20a oa’ emnui ox hsc n h e nusto,i:B in: inquisition, new the and physics hoax: hermeneutic Sokal’s (2002a) (1999) (1983) (1921) ,G ,H 19)‘tl’frhsoin n philosophers, and historians for ‘Style’ (1992) . tal et ...... (1998) . . 18)ZrWseshfs n rennsufsugvnLdi lc,Dsetto,Hum- Dissertation, Fleck, Ludwik von Erkenntnisauffassung und Wissenschafts- Zur (1987) (2000) (1999) (1992) AVROGLU 17)Ldi lc n h eeomn ftescooyo cec,i:PR G P.R. in: science, of sociology the of development the and Fleck Ludwik (1977) 17)DseoeicePrdxdrWseshfsoshn.EnBirgzrWissenschafts- zur Beitrag Ein Wissenschaftsforschung. der Paradox exoterische Das (1979) (1992) (1976) 17)Terl fdsoeisi oilsine n .S T. in: science, social in discoveries of role The (1972) ua iuain:Esy o obr Elias Norbert for Essays Figurations: Human . . CHNELLE ICHARDSON (1991) icpieadEprec:TeMteaia a nteSinicRevolution Scientific the in Way Mathematical The Experience: and Discipline . 15 [1949]) (1957 hmsKh:APioohclHsoyfrOrTimes Our for History Philosophical A Kuhn: Thomas h eei n eeomn faSinicFact Scientific a of Development and Genesis The (Eds) ¨t e tli e idne us.Aleen tlhoi n ecihlceSuindazu Studien geschichtliche und Stiltheorie Allgemeine Kunst. bildenden der in Stil Der h oilCntuto fWhat? of Construction Social The Intervening and Representing h cetfi eouin itrorpi Survey Historiographic A Revolution: Scientific The Berlin. aigNtrlKolde osrciimadteHsoyo Science of History the and Constructivism Knowledge: Natural Making atn fteWy:Cra,Csie,Heidegger Cassirer, Carnap, Ways: the of Parting Positivism Logical Sciences Reconsidering Exact the and Kant atadteDnmco Reason of Dynamic the and Kant h tutr fScooia Inference Sociological of Structure The uutn oGllo h itr fSine D1100–1700 AD Science, of History The Galileo: to Augustine ,K.&K h omladtePathological the and Normal The eSyste Le i nseugudEtikugenrwseshflceTatsache wissenschaftliche einer Entwicklung und Entstehung Die usgshct:en Einfu eine Kunstgeschichte: ,T emnui hlspyo cec,VnGg’ ys n o:Esy nHnrof Honor in Essays God: and Eyes, Gogh’s Van Science, of Philosophy Hermeneutic , etcrf fu Zeitschrift , . otnSuisi h hlspyo cec,Vl 2 Drrct Kluwer). (Dordrecht, 225 Vol. Science, of Philosophy the in Studies Boston ..(d)(1996) (Eds) A.W. Es (1986) (Eds) `m h rgn fMdr cec 1300–1800 Science Modern of Origins The INDI ed u ¨r ,V od:Hsor e otie omlgqe ePao a Platon de cosmologiques doctrines des Histoire monde: lgmieWissenschaftstheorie allgemeine . onto n at aeil nLdi Fleck Ludwik on Materials Fact: and Cognition 20)Adsuso ihToa un n K in: Kuhn, Thomas with discussion A (2000) Cmrde abig nvriyPress). University Cambridge (Cambridge, OHEN ¨ rgn fLgclEmpiricism Logical of Origins Cmrde A avr nvriyPress). University Harvard MA, (Cambridge, hrung Cmrde A avr nvriyPress). University Harvard MA, (Cambridge, Cmrde abig nvriyPress). University Cambridge (Cambridge, &S , Lno,Blackwell). (London, ..F C.K. Bri,Rie) p 151–168. pp. Reimer), (Berlin, OHEN OLLIS CHNELLE Asedm Rodopi). (Amsterdam, Lno,Heinemann). (London, tde nHsoyadPiooh fScience of Philosophy and History in Studies ABICH &S &S.L AWCETT CHNELLE ,F.B 20b p 219–229). pp. (2002b, 18,p.153–158). pp. (1986, OHEN , Ciao L pnCourt). Open IL, (Chicago, UKES Drrct lwr,p.1–13. pp. Kluwer), (Dordrecht, Ciao L nvriyo Chicago of University IL, (Chicago, Ciao L nvriyo Chicago of University IL, (Chicago, 0 p 213–233. pp. 10, HANIN Tas)(e ok oeBooks). Zone York, (New (Trans.) Lno,Bell). (London, RADLEY &S (Eds) 18,p.129–151). pp. (1986, CHNELLE (Ed.) Mnepls nvriyof University (Minneapolis, ainlt n Relativism and Rationality & ABICH Lno,Heinemann). (London, h ue fteGame the of Rules The ..T T.J. Fakuta Main, am (Frankfurt rtclInquiry Critical , 18,p.59–78). pp. (1986, otnSuisin Studies Boston ` E. Nietzsche, (Ed.) Copernic ABICH RENN Ciao IL, (Chicago, (Cambridge, UHN LEICHMANN (Trans.) (2002b, (Traisa, (2000, (Paris, , , 19, 23, Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution] At: 17:40 23 December 2007 M S K W P S P W T S T L O H S L Z Z S K T S K K S Z M J S S M T N K S S M W ARDINE ORREL HAPIN HAPIN EMPER CHNELLE CHNELLE CHNELLE CHA CHA CHA AUNDERS RINCIPE IPPIN EWONTIN ATOUR IMAN IMAN AJICEK SOUYOPOULOS RENN OULMIN OULMIN UHN UHN UHN OCKELMANS ERSZBERG HE IETZSCHE ARWOOD O INNEKE INCKELMAN ERTON ASTERMAN AC AC ¨ LFFLIN ,W. ¨ ¨ ¨ a hauerkunst uvvlo h cutwti h ainlmcaitcwrdview, world mechanistic rational the within occult the of survival h cuec n prcaino nniiae eerhrsls Atei,MruteUniversity. Marquette thesis, MA results, research unanticipated of appreciation and occurence the eii.Asiadrezn i uwkFek Etthn n nwcln ie wissenschaftlichen einer Entwicklung und «Entstehung Flecks Tatsache», Ludwik mit Auseinandersetzung Medizin. itere n .S L. in: nistheorie, etcrf fu Zeitschrift ektl ndrWissenschaftsphilosophie der in Denkstils nvriyPress). University (Mu p 304–305. pp. (Frankfurt). Journal Aufsa rwho Knowledge of Growth nvriyo hcg Press). Chicago of University Pictn J rneo nvriyPress). University Princeton NJ, (Princeton, h oilg fSinei Europe in Science of Sociology The nvriyPress). University Interview Dialogo I I FER FER FER NTYRE NTYRE , , , ,R ie uwkFek(8616) n C in: (1896–1961), Fleck Ludwik life: ,J ,J , ,S.&S ,S ,T ..(90[1962]) (1970 T.S. ,G ..(99 oeod n F in: Foreword, (1979) T.S. ,G ,N ¨ ,B ..(2000) T.S. ..(99 rfc,i:F in: Preface, (1979) T.J. . , ,L.&S ,L.&S ,L . ,L ce,Bruckmann). nchen, ¨ ,S ,S ,S . O DER VON tze (1995) . ,T.&B ,T ,T ,B ,H ..(97 h oilg fsine neioi eor n ..M R.K. in: memoir, episodic an science: of sociology The (1977) R.K. ,J 20)N a sa sad n B in: island, an is man No (2002) , . 20)Gysineadcroelknowledge, corporeal and science Gay (2000) . ,F ,P . ,5 . . (1996) ,A ,A ..(1993) R.C. . . . (1991) . . ,M (Stuttgart). (1860–1863) . 20 [1991]) (2000 ,J.C . . 19)Ldi lc:fudro h hlspyo oenmedicine, modern of philosophy the of founder Fleck: Ludwik (1992) Fakuta an urap,p.9–34. pp. Suhrkamp), Main, am (Frankfurt 19)Ldi lc—u ikn ie Wirkungslosen, eines Wirkung Fleck—Zur Ludwik (1992) , (1999) (1992) , . . 20)Tehreetc ftentrlsine,i:B in: sciences, natural the of hermeneutics The (2002) (1998) . . , (1993) 17)Tere-yaiceNcleeugn nekne uKuhn–Sneed–Stegmu zu Anmerkungen Nachlieferungen. Theorien-dynamische (1977) 18)Mcoilg n hlspyo cec.Lo n h emnHlcut ttosof Stations Holocaust. German the and Lwow science. of philosophy and Microbiology (1986) 20)Gamrs fpreto,i:B in: perception, of Grammar(s) (2002) ..(95 oada nepeieo emnui oilscience, social hermeneutic or interpretive an Toward (1975) J.J. . . ¨r ..(1755) J.J. (1982) ,N (1915) (Dresden). (1980) eiihsoice Journal Medizinhistorisches (1997) p 73–96. pp. CHAFFER . 19)Peae n B in: Preface, (1999) (1981) CHNELLE CHNELLE fOeMn:TeCletvzto fScience of Collectivization The Mind: One Of 17)Tentr faprdg,i:I L I. in: paradigm, a of nature The (1970) hlspiceForschung philosophische 17)Srniiyrcniee:scooia n eahoeia osdrtosregarding considerations metatheoretical and sociological reconsidered: Serendipity (1971) . ONANT h cetfi Revolution Scientific The cets:Piooh n h nauto ihScience with Infatuation the and Philosophy Scientism: 18)AfdrScenc ie ada einer nach Suche der Auf (1982) ALDAMUS ompls h idnAed fModernity of Agenda Hidden The Cosmopolis: adr’ oe saso h elt fSineStudies Science of Reality the on Essays Hope: Pandora’s h siigAet oetByeadHsAceia Quest Alchemical His and Boyle Robert Adept: Aspiring The h odSneSrcue hlspia sas 9019,wt nAutobiographical an with 1970–1993, Essays, Philosophical Structure: Since Road The tlso cetfi huh:TeGra eei omnt,1900–1933 Community, Genetic German The Thought: Scientific of Styles rtsh Studienausgabe Kritische usgshctih rnbgif.DsPolmdrSietikugi e eee Kunst neueren der in Stilentwicklung der Problem Das Grundbegriffe. Kunstgeschichtliche uwkFek ee n ekn u nseugudEtikugdssoziologischen des Entwicklung und Entstehung Zur Denken. und Leben Fleck. Ludwik rtqeadTotality and Critique fe Virtue After CHA ,S ilg sIelg:TeDcrn fDNA of Doctrine The Ideology: as Biology Cmrde abig nvriyPes,p.59–89. pp. Press), University Cambridge (Cambridge, ,T ,T e tli e ehice n etnshnKu tektonischen und technischen den in Stil Der &J.H ¨ eaknu Gedanken h tutr fSinicRevolutions Scientific of Structure The . h cnso Inquiry of Scenes The FER . ,W . (1985) 18)DeAktualita Die (1983) 18)Enetn,i:F in: Einleitung, (1980) &T.S AUGELAND . LECK 17)Msi oensine oilgclrflcin ntestrange the on reflections Sociological science? modern Mystic (1978) Lno,Duckworth). (London, LECK eita n h i up obs ol n h xeietlLife Experimental the and Boyle Hobbes, Pump: Air the and Leviathan ABICH ¨ Crodl,Suhr liosUiest Press). University Illinois Southern (Carbondale, e i ahhugdrgicice ek ndrMlryudBild- und Malerey der in Werke griechischen der Nachahmung die ber 17,p.xii–xix). pp. (1979, CHNELLE , , 17,p.vi–xi). pp. (1979, 1 p 19–42. pp. 31, 7 p 20–36. pp. 17, Febr mBesa,HcshlamugPhilosophie). Hochschulsammlung Breisgau, im (Freiburg Ciao L nvriyo hcg Press). Chicago of University IL, (Chicago, Abn,SaeUiest fNwYr Press). York New of University State (Albany, Es Ciao L nvriyo hcg Press). Chicago of University IL, (Chicago, (Eds) 19b p xv–xvii). pp. (1999b, ABICH OHEN Bri,Wle eGruyter). de Walter (Berlin, RMFLECK’S FROM Ofr,Ofr nvriyPress). University Oxford (Oxford, ¨t (Eds) &S 20b p 203–217). pp. (2002b, uwkFek nWseshfsoilgeudErkennt- und Wissenschaftssoziologie in Flecks Ludwik LECK ABICH CHNELLE ¨ utnMtoefu Methode quaten uwkFek rarn n asce Gesammelte Tatsache. und Erfahrung Fleck: Ludwik Nietzsche-Studien AKATOS Wobr,N,Aeia nttt fPhysics). of Institute American NY, (Woodbury, 18,p.vii–xlvii). pp. (1980, 20b p 301–310). pp. (2002b, Ciao L nvriyo hcg Press). Chicago of University IL, (Chicago, Ciao L nvriyo hcg Press). Chicago of University IL, (Chicago, 18,p.3–36). pp. (1986, DENKSTIL NwYr,Harper). York, (New &A.M etcrf fu Zeitschrift ABICH ¨ se,oe rkiceAesthetik praktische oder nsten, retkesfu Arbeitskreis Lno,Routledge). (London, ¨r , 20b p 25–29). pp. (2002b, 9 p 136–152. pp. 29, USGRAVE i eciheudTereder Theorie und Geschichte die OKH’ PARADIGM KUHN’S TO ¨r Cmrde A Harvard MA, (Cambridge, rdaeFclyPhilosophy Faculty Graduate ERTON Pictn J Princeton NJ, (Princeton, Soziologie ¨r (Eds) Wissenschaftsgeschichte: acrJournal Cancer &J.G ,7 rtcs n the and Criticism , Ciao IL, (Chicago, p 251–266. pp. ASTON ,2 , (Eds) ¨ vols ller, 5/6, 91 Downloaded By: [Ingenta Content Distribution] At: 17:40 23 December 2007 n O h nltcCnietlDvd nPiooh”i rd (Ed.), Prado in Philosophy” in Divide Analytic-Continental the “On and rtn oko edge’ hlspyo oensineadtechnology. and science modern of philosophy Heidegger’s on book a writing 19) ulse ntesre otnSuisi h hlspyo cec,adeio of editor and Science, the of of 10 Philosophy Vol. God of in the and Bachelard”, author in Eyes, and the Duhem, Studies Gogh’s Mach, is Boston Van Science: She Science, series DC. of the Philosophy Research Washington, in Adjunct in and published City University (1999), York New Georgetown Science in at of University Philosophy Fordham Philosophy at Philosophy of of Professor Professor is Babich E. Babette contributor on Note 92 hlspy oda nvriy 1 et6t tet e ok Y103 S.E-mail: USA. 10023, NY York, New Street, 60th West 113 University, [email protected] Fordham Philosophy, B . E . BABICH 19) opln n otiuigeio ftocletoson collections two of editor contributing and compiling (1994), 20) uhro h nr,“otnna hlspyof Philosophy “Continental entry, the of Author (2002). oteg nylpdao Philosophy of Encyclopedia Routledge A Correspondence os Divided House itsh n h Sciences the and Nietzsche : eatetof Department 20) h is she (2003), 19,2003) (1996, Hermeneutic Nietzsche’s