DVT 191, 3
Periodická soustava prvků: úspěchy i omyly
The periodic system of elements: successes and failures.
The article delas with the priority of Mendeleev in arranging the elements and formulating a general conclusion – the periodic law. The periodic system of elements was a product of centuries old attempts to organize material, inorganic world. Not only Mendeleev but many scientists before and after publication of the table failed in their search for new elements, what has resulted in numerous erroneous discoveries. They belong inherently to the history; a few examples are given in this contribution.
Keywords: chemical element ● periodic table ● law of octaves ● dvi-manganese ● Ar-Rāzī ● Newlands ● Meyer ● Mendeleev ● Heyrovský
The periodic system of elements was a product of centuries old attempts to organize material, inorganic world, as natural human aspiration to arrange the picture of surrounding environment. From the primitive classification in antiquity, the first peak was the system of mineral substances proposed by Arabic alchemist and physician Abū Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakarīja ar-Rāzī (ca. 865 – cca. 925). In Europe his system remained in use until the end of the 17th century. Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier’s proposal of the definition of chemical element as “simple substance”, and subsequent John Dalton’s (1766–1844) atomic theory allowed to advance to a higher level – to begin attempts at classification of elements. After several versions by Johann Wolfgang Döbereiner (1780–1849), Alexandre Emile Béguyer de Chancourtois (1820−1886), John Alexander Reina Newlands (1837–1898), and others, all not fully correct, in 1869 Dimitri Ivanovich Mendeleev (1834–1907) and independently Julius Lothar Meyer (1830–1895) published the table that is still in use. The priority of Mendeleev is rightly recognized, as he was able not only to arrange the elements, but also formulate general conclusion – the periodic law. Yet, not only he but many scientists before and after publication of the table failed in their search for new elements, what has resulted in numerous erroneous discoveries. They belong inherently to the history; a few examples are given as well.
Katedra filosofie a dějin přírodních věd PřF UK
Viničná 7, 128 00 Praha 2
DVT 191, 14
Positivismusstreit jako spor o metodu (nejen) sociálních věd
Positivismusstreit as a dispute over the method of (not only) social sciences.
Positivismusstreit (‘positivist dispute’) is the famous dispute in German sociology and philosophy of science which erupted in 1961 in Tübingen. The main issue was the logic of social sciences (also in relation to the natural sciences) but there were many crucial pre-misunderstandings at the historical-ideological level in the dispute from the beginning. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that due of this fact, the initially rather formal misunderstanding between Popper and Adorno in the first round of the dispute gradually evolved into a full-blown clash of incommensurable philosophical perspectives resulting in a complete lack of mutual understanding on both sides between Albert and Habermas in the second round.
Keywords: positivism ● science ● sociology ● Popper ● Adorno ● Habermas ● Albert
Ve stati byl spor o pozitivismus nejprve představen jako vyvrcholení dlouhodobější diskuze v německé filosofii vědy, která má kořeny v novokantovské dichotomii metod přírodních a historických věd v 19. století, pokračuje sporem o hodnotové soudy a postulátem hodnotové neutrality Maxe Webera na počátku 20. století, přes Horkheimerovu kritiku novopozitivismu ve 30. letech až po oficiální začátek sporu o pozitivismus v roce 1961. Poté je blíže specifikováno ideologické pozadí dvou hlavních aktérů: Karla R. Poppera a Theodora W. Adorna. Jsou podány argumenty, že právě ideologické pozadí sehrálo ve sporu důležitou roli. Poté se pozornost přesouvá k meritu věci, jímž je rozbor filosoficko-vědních nedorozumění ohledně problému metodologie sociálních věd, kterou se Popper snaží dát do souladu s metodologií věd přírodních, zatímco Adorno obě oblasti chápe jako metodologicky autonomní. S tím souvisí druhý problém, tedy nárok na hodnotovou neutralitu, který Adorno vztahuje pouze na „objektivizující“ přírodní vědy, zatímco pro sociální vědy navrhuje dialektiku jednotlivce a celku, která odráží hermeneutický kruh. Popper naproti tomu nerozlišuje mezi přírodními a sociálními vědami, neboť v obou oblastech musí být ve vztahu k pravdivosti vědeckých teorií zachována hodnotová neutralita, respektive objektivita jako intersubjektivní testovatelnost. V poslední části pak stať poukazuje na vyostření kontroverze mezi Albertem a Habermasem, kteří ani po subtilním rozvedení argumentů svých stran nedokázali dojít ke společnému diskurzu, natož ke konsensu.
In this paper, the positivist dispute was first introduced as the culmination of a longterm discussion in the German philosophy of science. This discussion is rooted in the Neo-Kantian dichotomy between the methods of natural and historical sciences in the 19th century, it continues the value judgments dispute and the formulation of Max Weber’s postulate of value neutrality at the beginning of the 20th century, through Horkheimer’s critique of neopositivism in the 1930s, until the official beginning the positivist dispute in 1961. Then, the ideological background of the two main actors – Karel R. Popper and Theodor W. Adorno – is specified and it is argued that the ideological background played an important role in the dispute. The focus then shifts to the analysis of philosophical misunderstandings about the problem of methodology of social sciences. Popper tries to bring it into line with the methodology of natural sciences, while Adorno understands both areas as methodologically autonomous. This is related to the second problem, the postulate of value neutrality, which Adorno associates only with “objectivizing” natural sciences, while for the social sciences he proposes the dialectic of the individual and the whole that reflects the hermeneutic circle. Popper, on the other hand, does not distinguish between natural and social sciences, because in both spheres, value neutrality or objectivity as intersubjective testability must be maintained in relation to the truth of scientific theories. In the last part, it is pointed out that the controversy between Hans Albert and Jürgen Habermas has sharpened, and even after a subtle refinement of the arguments they have failed to find a common discourse.
Katedra filozofie FF ZČU v Plzni
Sedláčkova 19, 306 14 Plzeň
DVT 191, 34
Století dějin farmacie v samostatném státu 1918–2018
A century in the independent Czechoslovakia and Czech Republic 1918–2018.
The study focuses on the research work in the field of history of pharmacy. In the years 1918–1948 researchers like Emil Šedivý, Josef Svetozár Novák and Jaroslav Hladík were non-professionals with no institutional support. In the era of socialist Czechoslovakia (1948–1989) special institutions and organizations were established. In universities’ faculties of pharmacy in Brno, Bratislava and Hradec Králové came to existence institutes for history of pharmacy, other centres arose within the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences and the Czech Pharmaceutical Society. In the period since 1990 the University of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences in Brno and the Czech Pharmaceutical Museum in Kuks became new research centres in the history of pharmacy.
Key words: history of pharmacy ● pharmaceutical institutions ● Czechoslovakia ● Czech Republic ● 1918–2018
A hundred years of research in history of pharmacy in Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic could be divided into three distinctive periods. Between 1918 and 1948, researchers were mostly independent authors publishing in professional journals. Emil Šedivý, Josef Svetozár Novák and Jaroslav Hladík stand out among them. In the period 1948–1989, research was institutionalized. Researchers were active within various institutions and organisations. University research reached the highest level in quality. Separate institutes for history of pharmacy were established in universities′ departments of pharmacy in Brno, Bratislava and Hradec Králové. The most significant person of this era was Václav Rusek. Non-professional research took place within the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences in the Czechoslovak Society for the History of Sciences and Technology, where the Section for History of Pharmacy operated. Another centre was the Section of History of Pharmacy of the Czech Pharmaceutical Society. The most specific platform for basic research was movement of pharmacists-historians, which was established in five regions of Czechoslovakia on the basis of Regional Institutes for the National Healthcare. The period since 1990 was initially characterised by transformation. Many of the mentioned institutions ceased to exist, while others like the Czech Pharmaceutical Museum and the University of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences Brno newly came to existence as research centres in the field of the history of pharmacy.
České farmaceutické muzeum
Hospitál Kuks, 544 43 Kuks
DVT 191, 43
Staráme se opravdu méně o therapii? Odpověď internisty profesora MUDr. Ladislava Syllaby na pasáž o zdravotnictví v projevu prezidenta T. G. Masaryka 28. 10. 1928 k desátému výročí vzniku ČSR.
Do we really care less about therapy? A response of prof. Ladislav Syllaba to
a passage on healthcare in the speech of president T. G. Masaryk from 28. 10.
1928 (the 10th anniversary of the establishment of Czechoslovakia).
On the 10th anniversary of the establishment of Czechoslovakia (28th October 1928) president Masaryk said that our medicine is excellent in diagnostic techniques, but less concerned with therapy. This statement was disproved by the internist prof. L. Syllaba in a treatise “Do we really care less about therapy?”
Key words: T.G. Masaryk ● L. Syllaba ● diagnostic ● therapy
In a letter to Masaryk‘s secretary Škrach, L. Syllaba, a family physician of the Masaryks, communicates his intention to publish a book about therapy in the Czech lands. An edition of the letter.
Ústav dějin lékařství a cizích jazyků 1. Lékařská fakulta, Univerzita Karlova U Nemocnice 4, 121 08 Praha 2