Предыстория биологической систематики: «народная таксономия» и развитие представлений о методе в естественной истории конца XVI - начала XVIII вв.
Superstition is an awkward category for historians of science, and they do not typically use it. Scientists, on the contrary, frequently do, often in loose terms to describe those beliefs that conflict with or simply ignore what science has revealed about nature’s truths. Occasionally the term has been weaponized to decry claims of which they decidedly do not approve, most memorably in the 1994 opening salvo of the Science Wars, Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt’s Higher Superstition—a frontal attack on science studies as an anti-science movement engineered by feminists and the “academic left”—which inspired Alan Sokal’s hoax and a great deal of hand-wringing within our field.
The paper examines recent trends in research focused on the history of natural history museums, collections, Kunstkammern, and botanical gardens in early modern and modern periods. It presents a detailed examinaton of the presentations read at the 7th bi-annual conference of the European Society of History of Science, which took place in Prague on September 22-24 2016 within the framework of a symposium organised by the authors of this paper
The article tells the biography of Academician A.M. Obukhov, the story of his family, circle of friends, circle of closest colleagues. The life path in science is described. А.М. Obukhov through the circles of proximity scientist.
The book considers a cultural history of Polish and Russian science in the context of Russian-Polish cross-cultural relationships and in broader context of modern history of Poland and Russia.
The article deals with an important problem of the world and Russian Egyptology, i.e. with the interpretation of a statement by the Alexandrian scientist of the 4th-5th centuries A.D. Theon on an era “after Menophris” (ἀπὸ Μενόφρεως) allegedly started at the beginning of the “Sothic period” in 1322/1 B.C. The first part of the article analyses the polemic on the identification of the name *Μενόφρις with a specific Ancient Egyptian royal name, with a special attention towards the positions of the Russian Soviet Egyptologists V.V. Struve and O.D. Berlev. The former one forwarded in 1920s was embedded in the world scholarship and contained a number of errors, which remained unnoticed due to a decline of the scholarly criticism at the period. On the contrary, Berlev’s position (1999) was totally original and in fact trail-blazing for the ultimate solution of the problem. The second part of the article proposes a development of Berlev’s position. The epithet “Memphite” (*Mn-nfry) that backed the name *Μενόφρις and was originally applied to Zoser, the inaugurator of the “Sothic calendar”, could be transferred on an image of a great king that reigned in Egypt after the catastrophe of the Amarna time. This king could be considered the founder of the “Memphite time” in Egyptian history, the creator of the “Sothic’ calendar” and respectively the contemporary of the start of a “Sothic period” (Theon’s “Menophris’ era”).