Scrape wikipedia-science: 5257 new, 3050 updated, 8539 total (kb-cron)
This commit is contained in:
parent
9e5bb17288
commit
886d31797d
16
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Knowledge-0.md
Normal file
16
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Knowledge-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "A History of Knowledge"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Knowledge"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:29:00.274251+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
A History of Knowledge is a 1991 book on intellectual history, with emphasis on the western civilization, written by Charles Van Doren, a former editor of the Encyclopædia Britannica. It is a history of human thought covering over 5,000 years of philosophy, learning, and belief systems that surveys the key historical trends and breakthroughs connecting the globalizing human landscape of the 20th century all the way back to the scattered roots of human civilization in India, Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, Greece, and Rome.
|
||||
For a sense of the tone, the first section is entitled "The Wisdom of the Ancients" and begins, "By the time written history began, some fifty centuries ago, mankind had learned much more than our primitive ancestors knew."
|
||||
The book's last chapter focuses on the potential developments of the 21st century. It also contains biographies of many notable historical figures.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
15
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbot_Payson_Usher_Prize-0.md
Normal file
15
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbot_Payson_Usher_Prize-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Abbot Payson Usher Prize"
|
||||
chunk: 1/3
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbot_Payson_Usher_Prize"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:06.152222+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Abbot Payson Usher Memorial Prize, established in 1961 and named for Dr Abbott Payson Usher, is an award given annually by Society for the History of Technology for the best scholarly work on the history of technology published during the preceding three years under the auspices of the Society.
|
||||
Recipients include some of the most highly regarded historians of technology, including such pioneering figures as Robert S. Woodbury, Silvio Bedini, Robert Multhauf, Eugene S. Ferguson, Cyril Stanley Smith and others. The prize also indicates shifts in the field's emphasis over more than five decades from early technical studies of individual machines; the subsequent prominence of science, systems, and industrial research in the work of Thomas P. Hughes, George Wise, Bruce Seely and others; the rise of politics, gender and colonialism; and the recent shift to cultural histories of technology by Edward Jones-Imhotep and others. Pamela O. Long's Usher-prize-winning "Openness of Knowledge" was one basis for her awards as Guggenheim Fellow and MacArthur Fellow.
|
||||
|
||||
== Past recipients ==
|
||||
Source: Abbot Payson Usher Memorial Prize
|
||||
59
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbot_Payson_Usher_Prize-1.md
Normal file
59
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbot_Payson_Usher_Prize-1.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Abbot Payson Usher Prize"
|
||||
chunk: 2/3
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbot_Payson_Usher_Prize"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:06.152222+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
2024: Faisal Husain, “To Dam or Not to Dam: The Social Construction of an Ottoman Hydraulic Project, 1701-1702,” Technology and Culture 64:2 (2023): 456–484. 2023: Leor Halevi, "What Hath Allah Wrought? The Global Invention of Prescriptive Machines for the Islamic Consumer, 1975–2010", Technology and Culture 62:3 (2021): 741–779
|
||||
2022: Robert MacDougall, "Sympathetic Physics: The Keely Motor and The Laws of Thermodynamics in Nineteenth Century Culture", Technology and Culture 60:2 (2019): 438–46
|
||||
2021: Robyn d’Avignon, "Spirited Geobodies: Producing Subterranean Property in Nineteenth-Century Bambuk, West Africa", Technology and Culture 61:2 Supplement (2020), S20-S48
|
||||
2020: Daniel Williford, "Seismic Politics: Risk and Reconstruction after the 1960 Earthquake in Agadir, Morocco", Technology and Culture 58:4 (October 2017): 982–1016
|
||||
2019: Eden Medina, "Forensic Identification in the Aftermath of Human Rights Crimes in Chile: A Decentered Computer History", Technology and Culture 59:4 (Supplement, 2018): S100–S133
|
||||
2018: Whitney Laemmli, "A Case in Pointe: Romance and Regimentation at the New York City Ballet", Technology and Culture 56 (January 2015): 1–27
|
||||
2017: Edward Jones-Imhotep, "Malleability and Machines: Glenn Gould and the Technological Self", Technology and Culture 57 (April 2016): 287–321
|
||||
2016: Edward J. Gillin, "Prophets of Progress: authority in the scientific projections and religious realisations of the Great Eastern steamship", Technology and Culture 56 (October 2015): 928–956
|
||||
2015: Jung Lee, "Invention without Science: 'Korean Edisons' and the Changing Understanding of Technology in Colonial Korea", Technology and Culture 54 (October 2013): 782–814
|
||||
2014: Chris Evans and Alun Withey, "An Enlightenment in Steel? Innovation in the Steel Trades of Eighteenth-Century Britain", Technology and Culture 53 (July 2012): 533–560
|
||||
2013: Thomas S. Mullaney, "The Moveable Typewriter: How Chinese Typists Developed Predictive Text during the Height of Maoism", Technology and Culture 53 (October 2012): 777-814
|
||||
2012: Tiina Männistö-Funk, "The Crossroads of Technology and Tradition: Vernacular Bicycles in Rural Finland, 1880-1910", Technology and Culture 52 (October 2011): 733–756
|
||||
2011: David Biggs, "Breaking from the Colonial Mold: Water Engineering and the Failure of Nation-Building in the Plain of Reeds, Vietnam", Technology and Culture 49 (July 2008): 599–623
|
||||
2010: Peter Norton, "Street Rivals: Jaywalking and the Invention of the Motor Age", Technology and Culture 48 (April 2007): 331–359
|
||||
2009: Crosbie Smith and Anne Scott, "'Trust in Providence': Building Confidence into the Cunard Line of Steamers", Technology and Culture 48 (July 2007): 471–96
|
||||
2008: Eric Schatzberg, "Technik Comes to America: Changing Meanings of Technology before 1930", Technology and Culture 47 (2006): 486-512 JSTOR 40061169
|
||||
2007: Carlo Belfanti, "Guilds, Patents, and the Circulation of Technical Knowledge: Northern Italy during the Early Modern Age", Technology and Culture 45 (2004): 569–89
|
||||
2006: Lissa Roberts, "An Arcadian Apparatus: The Introduction of the Steam Engine into the Dutch Landscape", Technology and Culture 45 (2004): 251–76
|
||||
2005: William Storey, "Guns, Race, and Skill in Nineteenth-Century South Africa", Technology and Culture 45 (2004): 687–711
|
||||
2004: Kenneth Lipartito, "Picturephone and the Information Age: The Social Meaning of Failure", Technology and Culture 44 (2003): 50–81
|
||||
2003: Amy Slaton, "'As Near as Practicable': Precision, Ambiguity, and the Social Features of Industrial Quality Control", Technology and Culture 42 (2001): 51–80
|
||||
2002: Wiebe E. Bijker and Karin Bijsterveld, "Walking through Plans: Technology, Democracy and Gender Identity", Technology and Culture 41 (2000): 485–515
|
||||
2001: John K. Brown, "Design Plans, Working Drawings, National Styles: Engineering Practice in Great Britain and the United States, 1775-1945", Technology and Culture 41 (2000): 195–238
|
||||
2000: Matthew W. Roth, "Mulholland Highway and the Engineering Culture of Los Angeles in the 1920s", Technology and Culture 40 (1999): 545–575
|
||||
1999: Joy Parr, "What Makes Washday Less Blue? Gender, Choice, Nation, and Technology Choice in Postwar Canada", Technology and Culture 38 (1997): 153–186
|
||||
1998: David Mindell, "'The Clangor of That Blacksmith's Fray': Technology, War, and Experience Aboard the USS Monitor", Technology and Culture 36 (1995): 242-70 JSTOR 3106372
|
||||
1997: Eric Schatzberg, "Ideology and Technical Choice: The Decline of the Wooden Airplane in the United States, 1920-1945", Technology and Culture 35 (1994): 34-69 JSTOR 3106748
|
||||
1996: Gabrielle Hecht, "Political Designs: Nuclear Reactors and National Policy in Postwar France", Technology and Culture 35 (1994): 657-85 JSTOR 3106502
|
||||
1995: Jameson W. Doig and David P. Billington, "Ammann's First Bridge: A Study in Engineering, Politics, and Entrepreneurial Behavior", Technology and Culture 35 (1994): 537-70 JSTOR 3106258
|
||||
1994: John Law, "The Olympus 320 Engine: A Case Study in Design, Development, and Organizational Control", Technology and Culture 33 (1992): 409-40 JSTOR 3106632
|
||||
1993: Barton Hacker, "An Annotated Index to Volumes 1-25", Technology and Culture (1991) JSTOR i356102; and Pamela O. Long, "The Openness of Knowledge: An Ideal and Its Context in 16th-Century Writings on Mining and Metallurgy", Technology and Culture 32 (1991): 318-55 JSTOR 3105713
|
||||
1992: Bryan Pfaffenberger, "The Harsh Facts of Hydraulics: Technology and Society in Sri Lanka's Colonization Schemes", Technology and Culture 31 (1990): 361-97 JSTOR 3106052
|
||||
1991: Robert Gordon, "Who Turned the Mechanical Ideal into Mechanical Reality?" Technology and Culture 29 (1988): 744-78 JSTOR 3105044
|
||||
1990: Laurence F. Gross, "Wool Carding: A Study of Skills and Technology", Technology and Culture 28 (1987): 804-27 JSTOR 3105183
|
||||
1989: Larry Owens, "Vannevar Bush and the Differential Analyzer: The Text and Context of an Early Computer", Technology and Culture 27 (1986): 63-95 JSTOR 3104945
|
||||
1988: Judith A. McGaw, "Accounting for Innovation: Technological Change and Business Practice in the Berkshire County Paper Industry", Technology and Culture 26 (1985): 703-25 JSTOR 3105616
|
||||
1987: Bruce E. Seely, "The Scientific Mystique in Engineering: Highway Research at the Bureau of Public Roads, 1918-1940", Technology and Culture 25 (1984): 798-831 JSTOR 3104623
|
||||
1986: Donald MacKenzie, "Marx and the Machine", Technology and Culture 25 (1984): 473-502 JSTOR 3104202
|
||||
1985: Eda Fowlks Kranakis, "The French Connection: Giffard's Injector and the Nature of Heat", Technology and Culture 23 (1982): 3-38 JSTOR 3104441
|
||||
1984: Walter G. Vincenti, "Control-Volume Analysis: A Difference in Thinking between Engineering and Physics", Technology and Culture 23 (1982): 145-74 JSTOR 3104129
|
||||
1983: George Wise, "A New Role for Professional Scientists in Industry: Industrial Research at General Electric, 1900-1916", Technology and Culture (1980): 408-29 JSTOR 3103155
|
||||
1982: Harold Dorn, "Hugh Lincoln Cooper and the First Détente", Technology and Culture 20 (1979): 322-47 JSTOR 3103869
|
||||
1981: Thomas P. Hughes, "The Electrification of America: The System Builders", Technology and Culture 20 (1979): 124-61 JSTOR 3103115
|
||||
1974: Carl Mitcham and Robert Mackey for their bibliography of the philosophy of technology, first published as a supplement to Technology and Culture 14 (1973) and then separately by the University of Chicago Press. 1974: R. L. Hills and A. J. Pacey "The Measurement of Power in Early Steam-Driven Textile Mills", Technology and Culture 13 (1972): 25–43 JSTOR 3102654
|
||||
1972: Cyril Stanley Smith, "Art, Technology and Science: Notes on their Historical Interaction", Technology and Culture 11 (1970): 493-549 JSTOR 3102690
|
||||
1969: Eugene S. Ferguson, "Bibliography of the History of Technology", an expansion of a series of articles originally published in Technology and Culture (1962–1965) and constituting no. 5 in the Monograph Series of the History of Technology, published jointly by SHOT and MIT Press
|
||||
1968: Carl W. Condit, "The First Reinforced-Concrete Skyscraper: The Ingalls Building in Cincinnati and Its Place in Structural History", Technology and Culture 9 (1968): 1-33 JSTOR 3102041
|
||||
1965: Robert P. Multhauf, "Sal Ammoniac: A Case History in Industrialization", Technology and Culture 6 (1965): 569-86 JSTOR 3101750
|
||||
1962: Silvio A.
|
||||
20
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbot_Payson_Usher_Prize-2.md
Normal file
20
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbot_Payson_Usher_Prize-2.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Abbot Payson Usher Prize"
|
||||
chunk: 3/3
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbot_Payson_Usher_Prize"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:06.152222+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Bedini, "The Compartmented Cylindrical Clepsydra", Technology and Culture 3 (1962): 115-41 JSTOR 3101437
|
||||
1961: Robert S. Woodbury, "The Legend of Eli Whitney and Interchangeable Parts", Technology and Culture 1 (1960): 235-53 JSTOR 3101392
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
List of history awards
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
The Abbot Payson Usher Prize - List of Winners
|
||||
27
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Pais_Prize-0.md
Normal file
27
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Pais_Prize-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Abraham Pais Prize"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Pais_Prize"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:17.872310+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Abraham Pais Prize for History of Physics is an award given each year since 2005 jointly by the American Physical Society and the American Institute of Physics for "outstanding scholarly achievements in the history of physics". The prize is named after Abraham Pais (1918–2000), science historian and particle physicist; as of 2024 the recipient receives US$10,000 and a certificate citing the contributions of the recipient, plus an allowance for travel to an APS meeting to receive the award and deliver a lecture on the history of physics.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Recipients ==
|
||||
Source:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
List of American Physical Society prizes and awards
|
||||
List of physics awards
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Abraham Pais Prize for History of Physics, American Physical Society
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Family_Tree"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:22:43.864333+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:34.722825+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Aerodynamics Research Institute"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodynamics_Research_Institute"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:31.459964+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Aerodynamische Versuchsanstalt (AVA) in Göttingen was one of the four predecessor organizations of the 1969 founded "German Research and Experimental Institute for Aerospace", which in 1997 was renamed German Aerospace Center (DLR).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== History ==
|
||||
|
||||
The AVA was created in 1919 from the 1907 Göttingen by Ludwig Prandtl founded "Modellversuchsanstalt für Aerodynamik der Motorluftschiff-Studiengesellschaft". In its founding years, it was still concerned with the development of the "best" form of airship. In 1908, the first wind tunnel was built in Göttingen for tests on models for aviation. In 1915, founded in 1911 Kaiser Wilhelm Society (KWG) and under the direction of Ludwig Prandtl the "Modellversuchsanstalt aerodynamics" was founded in 1919 as the "Aerodynamic Research Institute of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society" (AVA) was transferred to the KWG and converted in 1925 into the "Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Flow Research linked to the Aerodynamic Research Institute".
|
||||
Ludwig Prandtl headed the institute until 1937, his successor became Albert Betz. In the same year a spin-off from the institute took place under the name "Aerodynamische Versuchsanstalt Göttingen e. V. in the Kaiser Wilhelm Society ", in which the Reich Ministry of Aviation was involved.
|
||||
The remaining after the spin-off part was continued under the name "Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Flow Research" from the 1948, the Max Planck Institute for Fluid Research (today Max Planck Institute for Dynamics and Self-Organization).
|
||||
The AVA was confiscated in 1945 by the British (until 1948), 1953 as "Aerodynamic Research Institute Göttingen e. V. re-opened in the Max Planck Society and fully integrated in 1956 as the "Aerodynamic Research Institute in the Max Planck Society".
|
||||
In 1969, the spin-off from the Max Planck Society and the founding of the "German Research and Experimental Institute for Aerospace e. V.".
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Bibliography ==
|
||||
Aerodynamische Versuchsanstalt Göttingen e.V. in der Kaiser-Wilhelm-/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (CPTS), in: Eckart Henning, Marion Kazemi: Handbuch zur Institutsgeschichte der Kaiser-Wilhelm-/ Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften 1911–2011 – Daten und Quellen, Berlin 2016, 2 subvolumes, volume 1: Institute und Forschungsstellen A–L (online, PDF, 75 MB), pages 27–45 (Chronologie des Instituts)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Sources ==
|
||||
Historie des DLR – Gesellschaft von Freunden des DLR e. V.
|
||||
100 Jahre DLR – Homepage des DLR
|
||||
Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
|
||||
42
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein_Archives-0.md
Normal file
42
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein_Archives-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Albert Einstein Archives"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein_Archives"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:44.281773+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Albert Einstein Archives refers to an archive on the Givat Ram (Edmond J. Safra) campus of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Jerusalem housing the personal papers of 20th century physicist Albert Einstein.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Overview ==
|
||||
|
||||
In his will, Albert Einstein left the Hebrew University his personal papers and the copyright to them. The Albert Einstein Archives contain some 55,000 items. In March 2012, the university announced that it had digitized the archive and was planning to make it more accessible online. The archive initially released 2,000 documents. Within the collection are his personal notes, love letters to various women, including the woman who would become his second wife, Elsa. Also to be included in the online collection is a letter to the Arabic newspaper Falastin, proposing a "Secret Council" composed of Arabs and Jews to resolve the Arab–Israeli conflict.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== History ==
|
||||
|
||||
Albert Einstein visited Palestine in 1923 for 12 days, giving the first lecture at the Mount Scopus campus of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem—two years before the university opened in 1925. Menachem Ussishkin, the president of the Zionist Executive, invited Einstein to settle in Jerusalem, but this was the only visit that Einstein actually made to Jerusalem. However, Einstein was a member of the university's first board of governors. In 1925, the original 46-page manuscript of the general theory of relativity ended up at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
|
||||
Einstein did not save all of his written material, but from 1919, as his fame increased, he employed his stepdaughter Ilse as a secretarial assistant. Helen Dukas (1896–1982) began working for Einstein with increased systematization from April 1928, although not all outgoing correspondence was saved. After the Nazis' rise to power in 1933, Einstein's son-in-law Rudolf Kayser, aided by the French Embassy, rescued Einstein's papers in Berlin. Some of the material at Einstein's summer house in Caputh, Brandenburg was destroyed to avoid seizure, although most of his works between 1930 and 1932 were saved. That material was transported via Haberlandstrasse where Einstein lived in Berlin, then to Paris, and ended up stored in Princeton, New Jersey, United States until after Einstein's death.
|
||||
Einstein's 1950 will appointed Helen Dukas and Otto Nathan as trustees of the estate and stated, "[A]ll literary rights and assets shall be vested in the Hebrew University." After Einstein's death in 1955, the trustees spent many years organizing Einstein's papers. In the 1960s, Helen Dukas and the physicist Gerald Holton of Harvard University in the USA reorganized the archive, with the aim of publishing the material, in a joint project between the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Princeton University Press. The material increased from 14,000 documents at the time of Einstein's death in 1955 to around 42,000 documents in 1982. To aid in this work, Einstein's papers were transferred from his Princeton home to the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.
|
||||
In 1982, the Einstein Estate transferred Einstein's personal papers to the Jewish National & University Library in Jerusalem. President Avraham Harman of The Hebrew University and Milton Handler of the American Friends of the Hebrew University worked on the transfer of the material to Jerusalem. In subsequent years, additional material was sent from Einstein's Princeton home. The Bern Dibner Curatorship, which manages the Albert Einstein Archives, was established in 1988 by the Dibner Fund of Connecticut, USA.
|
||||
|
||||
The first curator of the Einstein Archives was Manfred Waserman whose term extended from 1988 to 1989. He was succeeded by Ze'ev Rosenkranz who served in that role from 1989 to 2003. The catalogue was made available online in 2003. Since 2004, Roni Grosz has been the head of the Archives. The Einstein Archives became part of the Hebrew University's Library Authority in January 2008. In July of that year, the Archives moved to the Levy Building on the Givat Ram campus. Since March 19, 2012, the Archives have digitized and made available increasingly more of Einstein's works online. Princeton University Press has also been active in this effort.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
Albert Einstein Square (Jerusalem)
|
||||
Einstein family
|
||||
Einstein Papers Project
|
||||
List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
|
||||
The Albert Einstein Archives website
|
||||
Einstein Archives Online
|
||||
54
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Tomatis-0.md
Normal file
54
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Tomatis-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Alfred Tomatis"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Tomatis"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:26:13.348746+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Alfred Tomatis (1 January 1920 – 25 December 2001) was a French otolaryngologist and inventor. He received his Doctorate in Medicine from the Paris School of Medicine. His alternative medicine theories of hearing and listening are known as the Tomatis method or Audio-Psycho-Phonology (APP).
|
||||
Tomatis' approach, a type of auditory integration training, is known as the Tomatis Method. It is promoted as being of benefit to people with autism, but there is no good evidence to support these claims and the Method has been classified as a pseudoscience.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Tomatis' life and work ==
|
||||
|
||||
Alfred Tomatis grew up in a musical family in France. His father was an opera singer, and he spent much of his childhood traveling with him and watching his opera performances from the wings. At an early age, however, he and his parents decided he was not fit for the stage. So he went into medicine and eventually became an Ear, Nose and Throat physician.
|
||||
Soon after he began his practice, his father began referring him opera colleagues with vocal problems. Tomatis soon discovered traditional treatments inadequate but also that there was very little research on the voice itself. He formulated the theory that many vocal problems were really hearing problems. His theory that "the voice does not produce what the ear does not hear", is the hallmark of his research and his method. He discovered that the voices of opera singers had damaged their own muscles of the middle ears. With damaged hearing, they were forcing their voices to produce sounds in registers they could no longer hear.
|
||||
In his attempt to retrain his patients, he developed the Electronic Ear, a device which utilizes electronic gating, bone conduction transducers and sound filters to enhance the uppermost missing frequencies. The goal is to tonify the muscles of the middle ear in order to sensitize the listener to the missing frequencies.
|
||||
Tomatis began treating a number of other problems with the same methods, including reading problems, dyslexia, depression, severe schizophrenia, and even autism. He found evidence that many of these problems result from a failure of communication, which has to do with listening and the ear.
|
||||
Scientific reports showed that the ear starts forming a few days after conception and that the ear is fully developed by the fourth month of pregnancy. Tomatis theorized that information coming from the fetal ear stimulates and guides the development of the brain. He believed that a number of auditory communication problems begin in pregnancy, with the fetus not properly responding to the voice of the mother. Tomatis theorized that the whole body is involved in the production of speech and language. He stated that reading, even silent reading, is an activity of the ear. He recommended reading out loud, not only for children and by children, but also by adults, for 30 minutes a day. He claimed this not only stimulates the brain but is the best way to learn.
|
||||
His most controversial method attempts to lead autistic children to recognize and respond to their mother's voice. The electronic ear, he maintained, could simulate the sound of the mother's voice as heard in the uterus, and to lead the child gradually to accept and respond to her real unfiltered voice. He reported that this method often brought startling results, with children crying with joy as they recognized their mother's voice for the first time.
|
||||
In many of the differing issues he addressed, Tomatis believed that many problems of learning disabilities, dyslexia, schizophrenia, and depression were caused by some trauma resulting from broken relationships and poor communication. He found that treatment of these maladies requires the cooperation of the parents and even grandparents.
|
||||
In his autobiography, Tomatis recounts the many run-ins he had with the medical establishment in both France and Canada, where he later worked. Eventually he left the orthodox medical community, admitting that his practice was beyond the scope of normative allopathic comprehension. He named his new field audio-psycho-phonology.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Tomatis Method ==
|
||||
The Tomatis Method is a type of auditory integration training. It has been classified as a pseudoscience.
|
||||
Due to the lack of scientific basis and the wide range of diseases it claimed to treat, French authorities have always considered Tomatis sound therapy as an alternative medicine which should not be promoted.
|
||||
In general there is no good evidence that auditory integration training, such as that offered in Tomatis therapy, is of any benefit to people with autism.
|
||||
Tomatis reported in his autobiography that he regretted not providing scientific colleagues with more statistical evidence for his work along with his many publications, but he said that the benefits of his methods are difficult to measure.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== The Tomatis effect ==
|
||||
Tomatis adapted his techniques to target diverse disorders including auditory processing problems, dyslexia, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorders, autism, and sensory processing and motor-skill difficulties. It is also claimed to have helped adults fight depression, learn foreign languages faster, develop better communication skills, and improve both creativity and on-the-job performance. About some musicians, singers and actors it is also claimed they have said they had found it helpful for fine-tuning their tonal and harmonic skills.
|
||||
The Tomatis Method uses recordings by Mozart and Gregorian Chant as well as of the patient's mother's voice. Tomatis' use of Mozart is not to be confused with so-called Mozart Effect popularized by American author and music researcher Don Campbell. Although Tomatis coined the phrase, his method is not directly related to claims that listening to Mozart increases intelligence.
|
||||
Tomatis wrote fourteen books and over two thousand articles. His Ear and Language, The Conscious Ear, The Ear and the Voice and We are all Multilingual have been translated into English, the latter by author David Charles Manners.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Awards and honors ==
|
||||
Tomatis' awards and honors include:
|
||||
|
||||
Knights of Public Health (1951)
|
||||
Gold Medal for Scientific Research Brussels (1958)
|
||||
Grand Medal of Vermeil from the City of Paris (1962)
|
||||
Price Isaure Clemence (1967)
|
||||
Gold Medal of the Society "Arts, Sciences and Letters" (1968)
|
||||
Commander's Cultural and Artistic Merit (1970)
|
||||
Medal of Honor Society for Promoting Arts and Letters (1992).
|
||||
Honorary Member of the Dorstmundt-Institut in Munich
|
||||
Honorary Member of the University of Potchefstroom, in South Africa, Faculty of Psychology
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Eclipse_(book)"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T08:32:32.056506+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:48.457675+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "An Examination of the Philosophy of Bacon"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Examination_of_the_Philosophy_of_Bacon"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:57.844596+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
An Examination of the Philosophy of Bacon (French: Examen de la Philosophie de Bacon) is a posthumous work by Savoyard philosopher Joseph de Maistre, analyzing and criticizing the philosophy of Francis Bacon. It was published in 1836 and translated into English by Richard Lebrun in 1998.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Thesis ==
|
||||
Maistre considers Bacon to be the fountainhead of a destructive rationalistic ideology, blaming him for much of the scientism and atheism of the Age of Enlightenment. The argumentation against Bacon's philosophy is based on Maistre's epistemology first enunciated in the St Petersburg Dialogues (1819), according to which science depends on the innate ideas that are common to all human minds. Without such first principles, Maistre argues, experiments would be useless because there would be no basis for judging their validity. Maistre also argues that genius plays a pivotal role in great scientific discoveries, as demonstrated by inspired intellects such as Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, and Isaac Newton, contrary to Bacon's theory about conforming to a mechanistic method.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Reception ==
|
||||
Although not as well known as some of Maistre's other works, its importance has long been recognized in France. Augustin Bonnetty remarked that "it would perhaps be necessary to go back to Pascal's Lettres provinciales to find a more severe, more mocking, more pointed critique." Gustave Flaubert quoted a few sentences from the work in his novel Bouvard et Pécuchet (1881)—a critique of bourgeoisie society:
|
||||
|
||||
“Bacon est absolument dépourvu de l’esprit d’analyse ; non seulement ne savait pas résoudre les questions, mais ne savait pas même les poser. // Bacon, absolutely destitute of the spirit of analysis, not only did not know how to resolve questions, but did not even know how to pose them.”
|
||||
“Bacon, man étranger à toutes les sciences et dont toutes les idées fondamentales étaient fausses. // Bacon, a man foreign to all sciences and whose fundamental ideas were false to the point of ridiculousness!”
|
||||
Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve, one of the most distinguished literary critics in nineteenth-century France, thought that Maistre's chapters on final causes and on the union of religion and science contained "certainly some of the finest pages that have ever been written in a human language."
|
||||
Scholars have also claimed that Maistre's work anticipated the philosophy of modern science. According to Frederick Holdsworth, Maistre described for the first time many of the principles on which modern scientific method is based on such matters as the nature of causality, the inevitable human-centeredness of all scientific understanding, the role of intuition in scientific discovery, and the inescapability of metaphysical considerations. Larry Siedentop concluded that Maistre reached "important and original conclusions about scientific method – conclusions which have since been accepted by the philosophy of science." Owen Bradley claims that "Maistre's critique of Enlightenment notions of science is significant in its own right as a highly modern approach to the history of science."
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
30
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Science_(Taubes_book)-0.md
Normal file
30
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Science_(Taubes_book)-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Bad Science (Taubes book)"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Science_(Taubes_book)"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:49.594885+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion is book of science history by Gary Taubes about the early years (1989–1991) of the cold fusion controversy.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Overview ==
|
||||
This text is not a scholarly work, but a popular retelling of the events, based on interviews with over 260 people. The book presents a timeline of the events, making the case that the cold fusion field has many examples of poorly performed science. The actions of Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, and Steven E. Jones, the scientists who made the dramatic first claims of fusion, are described in rich detail. The book then shows the worldwide reaction and later disrepute of the cold fusion field, with Taubes placing himself in the side of "good science". Taubes says at the end that cold fusion had only demonstrated that research can continue even if the phenomenon doesn't actually exist, as long as there is funding available. Taubes had previously written an article for Science in which he insinuates that the cold fusion work of A&M University was fraudulent.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Reception ==
|
||||
|
||||
The book received a positive review in American Journal of Physics. While observing that the book was "readable, suspenseful, and insightful", the reviewer criticized it for including too many footnotes (over 300), some of which were deemed unimportant.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Bibliography ===
|
||||
A. F. Burr (June 1994). "Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion" (book review)". Am. J. Phys. 62 (6): 575. Bibcode:1994AmJPh..62..575T. doi:10.1119/1.17527.
|
||||
Thomas F. Gieryn (1999). Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (illustrated ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 184. ISBN 0-226-29262-2. taubes cold fusion.
|
||||
Taubes, Gary (15 June 1990). "Cold fusion conundrum at Texas A&M". Science. Vol. 248, no. 4961. pp. 1299–1304. Bibcode:1990Sci...248.1299T. doi:10.1126/science.248.4961.1299. PMID 17735269.
|
||||
Philip Mirowski, Esther-Mirjam Sent (2002). Science bought and sold: essays in the economics of science (illustrated ed.). University of Chicago Press. p. 126. ISBN 978-0-226-53856-3.
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Biological_Laboratory_for_Women"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T07:09:19.187218+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:32.655403+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
0
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becoming_Yellow
Normal file
0
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becoming_Yellow
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Biafran Research and Production"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biafran_Research_and_Production"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:33.912878+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Biafran Research and Production or Research and Production (RAP) was a scientific and engineering research institution of the Republic of Biafra that researched and manufactured military technology for the Biafran Armed Forces during the Nigerian Civil War.
|
||||
RAP was founded in April 1967 by Biafran scientists at the University of Biafra (now University of Nigeria) to independently manufacture weapons and technology that were difficult for the Biafran military to acquire from abroad due to the Nigerian blockade of Biafra. Technologies produced by chemists included incendiaries, smoke signals, detonators, napalm, primers, rocket fuels, cocktails, and bombs. Engineering groups produced grenade and rocket casings, mortar shells, bullets, and armored vehicles. One of the best known weapons was Ogbunigwe, a family of highly effective explosive devices that killed thousands of Nigerian soldiers in a single blast. Scientists at RAP additionally experimented with the development of chemical and biological weapons.
|
||||
RAP allowed Biafra to unexpectedly fight an extended war against the Soviet and British-backed Nigerian military, while Biafra received comparatively little international military aid.
|
||||
The weapons and vehicles produced by RAP are on display at the National War Museum, Umuahia.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biographical_Encyclopedia_of_Astronomers"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:35.876094+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers (BEA) is a two-volume biographical dictionary, first published in 2007, with a second edition released in 2014. The work covers astronomers from all regions, born anytime between antiquity and mid-1918. It includes more than 1500 biographies of both well-known and more obscure astronomers, produced by 410 contributors.
|
||||
The encyclopedia has been published in both a print and online format by the publisher, Springer.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Editions ==
|
||||
Hockey, Thomas A.; Virginia Trimble; Thomas R. Williams; Katherine Bracher, eds. (2007). Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers. New York: Springer. Bibcode:2007bea..book.....H. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-30400-7. ISBN 9780387310220. Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers at Google Books
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
|
||||
Publisher's webpage (1st Edition)
|
||||
Publisher's webpage (2nd Edition)
|
||||
0
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonk
Normal file
0
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonk
Normal file
24
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Josephson-0.md
Normal file
24
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Josephson-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Brian Josephson"
|
||||
chunk: 1/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Josephson"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:16.307860+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Brian David Josephson (born 4 January 1940) is a British theoretical physicist and emeritus professor at the University of Cambridge. He shared the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics with Leo Esaki and Ivar Giaever for his discovery of the Josephson effect, made in 1962 when he was a Ph.D. student at Cambridge.
|
||||
Josephson has spent his academic career as a member of the Theory of Condensed Matter Group in Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory. He has been a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, since 1962, and served as Professor of Physics from 1974 until 2007.
|
||||
In the early 1970s, Josephson took up Transcendental Meditation and turned his attention to issues outside the boundaries of mainstream science. He set up the Mind–Matter Unification Project at Cavendish to explore the idea of intelligence in nature, the relationship between quantum mechanics and consciousness, and the synthesis of science and Eastern mysticism, broadly known as quantum mysticism. He has expressed support for topics such as parapsychology, water memory and cold fusion, which has made him a focus of criticism from fellow scientists.
|
||||
|
||||
== Education ==
|
||||
Brian David Josephson was born on 4 January 1940 in Cardiff, Wales, to Jewish parents, Abraham Josephson and Mimi Weisbard. He attended Cardiff High School, where he credits some of the school masters for having helped him, particularly the physics master, Emrys Jones, who introduced him to theoretical physics. In 1957, he went up to Cambridge, where he initially read mathematics at Trinity College, Cambridge. After completing Maths Part II in two years, and finding it somewhat sterile, he decided to switch to physics.
|
||||
Josephson was known at Cambridge as a brilliant but shy student. Physicist John Waldram recalled overhearing Nicholas Kurti, an examiner from Oxford, discuss Josephson's exam results with David Shoenberg, Reader in Physics at Cambridge, and asking: "Who is this chap Josephson? He seems to be going through the theory like a knife through butter." While still an undergraduate, he published a paper on the Mössbauer effect, pointing out a crucial issue other researchers had overlooked. According to one eminent physicist speaking to Physics World, he wrote several papers important enough to assure him a place in the history of physics even without his discovery of the Josephson effect.
|
||||
Josephson graduated in 1960 and became a research student in Cambridge's Mond Laboratory on the old Cavendish site, where he was supervised by Brian Pippard. American physicist Philip Anderson—also a future Nobel Prize laureate—spent a year in Cambridge in 1961–1962, and recalled that having Josephson in a class was "a disconcerting experience for a lecturer, I can assure you, because everything had to be right or he would come up and explain it to me after class." It was during this period, as a Ph.D. student in 1962, that he carried out the research that led to his discovery of the Josephson effect; the Cavendish Laboratory unveiled a plaque on the Mond Building dedicated to the discovery in November 2012. He was elected a Fellow of Trinity College in 1962, and received his Ph.D. in 1964 with a thesis titled Non-linear conduction in superconductors.
|
||||
|
||||
== Career ==
|
||||
Josephson spent a postdoctoral year in the United States (1965–1966) as Research Assistant Professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. After returning to Cambridge, he was made Assistant Director of Research in the Cavendish Laboratory in 1967, where he remained a member of the Theory of Condensed Matter Group for the rest of his career. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 1970, and was awarded a National Science Foundation Fellowship by Cornell University the same year. In 1972, he became Reader in Physics—and in 1974 was appointed Professor of Physics, a position he held until his retirement in 2007.
|
||||
A practitioner of Transcendental Meditation (TM) since the early 1970s, Josephson became a visiting faculty member in 1975 of the Maharishi European Research University in the Netherlands, part of the TM movement. He also held visiting professorships at Wayne State University in 1983, the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore in 1984, and the University of Missouri-Rolla in 1987.
|
||||
|
||||
== Josephson effect ==
|
||||
25
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Josephson-1.md
Normal file
25
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Josephson-1.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Brian Josephson"
|
||||
chunk: 2/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Josephson"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:16.307860+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Josephson was 22-years-old when he did the work on quantum tunnelling that earned him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973. He discovered that a supercurrent could tunnel through a thin barrier, predicting, according to physicist Andrew Whitaker, that "at a junction of two superconductors, a current will flow even if there is no drop in voltage; that when there is a voltage drop, the current should oscillate at a frequency related to the drop in voltage; and that there is a dependence on any magnetic field." This became known as the Josephson effect and the junction as a Josephson junction.
|
||||
Josephson's calculations were published in Physics Letters (chosen by Pippard because it was a new journal) in a paper titled "Possible new effects in superconductive tunnelling," received on 8 June 1962 and published on 1 July. They were confirmed experimentally by Philip Anderson and John Rowell of Bell Labs in Princeton; this appeared in their paper, "Probable Observation of the Josephson Superconducting Tunneling Effect," submitted to Physical Review Letters in January 1963.
|
||||
Before Anderson and Rowell confirmed the calculations, the American physicist John Bardeen, who had shared the 1956 Nobel Prize in Physics (and who shared it again in 1972), objected to Josephson's work. He submitted an article to Physical Review Letters on 25 July 1962, arguing that "there can be no such superfluid flow." The disagreement led to a confrontation in September that year at Queen Mary College, London, at the Eighth International Conference on Low Temperature Physics. When Bardeen (then one of the most eminent physicists in the world) began speaking, Josephson (still a student) stood up and interrupted him. The men exchanged views, reportedly in a civil and soft-spoken manner. See also: John Bardeen § Josephson effect controversy.
|
||||
Whitaker writes that the discovery of the Josephson effect led to "much important physics," including the invention of SQUIDs (superconducting quantum interference devices), which are used in geology to make highly sensitive measurements, as well as in medicine and computing. IBM used Josephson's work in 1980 to build a prototype of a computer that would be up to 100 times faster than the IBM 3033 mainframe.
|
||||
Josephson was awarded several important prizes for his discovery, including the 1969 Research Corporation Award for outstanding contributions to science, and the Hughes Medal and Holweck Prize in 1972. In 1973, he won the Nobel Prize in Physics, sharing the $122,000 award with two other scientists who had also worked on quantum tunnelling. Josephson was awarded half the prize "for his theoretical predictions of the properties of a supercurrent through a tunnel barrier, in particular those phenomena which are generally known as the Josephson effects". The other half of the award was shared equally by Japanese physicist Leo Esaki of the Thomas Watson Research Center in Yorktown, New York, and Norwegian–American physicist Ivar Giaever of General Electric in Schenectady, New York.
|
||||
|
||||
== Parapsychology ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Early interest and Transcendental Meditation ===
|
||||
Josephson became interested in philosophy of mind in the late 1960s and, in particular, in the mind–body problem, and is one of the few scientists to argue that parapsychological phenomena (telepathy, psychokinesis and other paranormal themes) may be real. In 1971, he began practising Transcendental Meditation (TM).
|
||||
Winning the Nobel Prize in 1973 gave Josephson the freedom to work in less orthodox areas, and he became increasingly involved—including during science conferences, to the irritation of fellow scientists—in talking about meditation, telepathy, and higher states of consciousness. In 1974, he angered scientists during a colloquium of molecular and cellular biologists in Versailles by inviting them to read the Bhagavad Gita (5th – 2nd century BCE) and the work of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the founder of the TM movement, and by arguing about special states of consciousness achieved through meditation. "Nothing forces us," one scientist shouted at him, "to listen to your wild speculations." Biophysicist Henri Atlan wrote that the session ended in uproar.
|
||||
In May that year, Josephson addressed a symposium held to welcome the Maharishi to Cambridge. The following month, at the first Canadian conference on psychokinesis, he was one of 21 scientists who tested claims by Matthew Manning, a Cambridgeshire teenager who said he had psychokinetic abilities; Josephson apparently told a reporter that he believed Manning's powers were a new kind of energy. He later withdrew or corrected the statement.
|
||||
Josephson said that Trinity College's tradition of interest in the paranormal meant that he did not dismiss these ideas out of hand. Several presidents of the Society for Psychical Research had been fellows of Trinity, and the Perrott-Warrick Fund, set up in Trinity in 1937 to fund parapsychology research, is still administered by the college. He continued to explore the idea that there is intelligence in nature, particularly after reading Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics (1975), and in 1979 took up a more advanced form of TM, known as the TM-Sidhi program. According to Anderson, the TM movement produced a poster showing Josephson levitating several inches above the floor. Josephson argued that meditation could lead to mystical and scientific insights, and that, as a result of it, he had come to believe in a creator.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Fundamental Fysiks Group ===
|
||||
50
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Josephson-2.md
Normal file
50
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Josephson-2.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Brian Josephson"
|
||||
chunk: 3/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Josephson"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:16.307860+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Josephson became involved in the mid-1970s with a group of physicists associated with the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley, who were investigating paranormal claims. They had organized themselves loosely into the Fundamental Fysiks Group, and had effectively become the Stanford Research Institute's (SRI) "house theorists," according to historian of science David Kaiser. Core members in the group were Elizabeth Rauscher, George Weissmann, John Clauser, Jack Sarfatti, Saul-Paul Sirag, Nick Herbert, Fred Alan Wolf, Fritjof Capra, Henry Stapp, Philippe Eberhard and Gary Zukav.
|
||||
There was significant government interest at the time in quantum mechanics – the American government was financing research at SRI into telepathy – and physicists able to understand it found themselves in demand. The Fundamental Fysiks Group used ideas from quantum physics, particularly Bell's theorem and quantum entanglement, to explore issues such as action at a distance, clairvoyance, precognition, remote viewing and psychokinesis.
|
||||
In 1976, Josephson travelled to California at the invitation of one of the Fundamental Fysiks Group members, Jack Sarfatti, who introduced him to others including laser physicists Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, and quantum physicist Henry Stapp. The San Francisco Chronicle covered Josephson's visit.
|
||||
Josephson co-organised a symposium on consciousness at Cambridge in 1978, publishing the proceedings as Consciousness and the Physical World (1980), with neuroscientist V. S. Ramachandran. A conference on "Science and Consciousness" followed a year later in Cordoba, Spain, attended by physicists and Jungian psychoanalysts, and addressed by Josephson, Fritjof Capra and David Bohm (1917–1992).
|
||||
By 1996, Josephson had set up the Mind–Matter Unification Project at the Cavendish Laboratory to explore intelligent processes in nature. In 2002, he told Physics World: "Future science will consider quantum mechanics as the phenomenology of particular kinds of organised complex system. Quantum entanglement would be one manifestation of such organisation, paranormal phenomena another."
|
||||
|
||||
=== Reception and views on the scientific community ===
|
||||
Josephson delivered the Pollock Memorial Lecture in 2006, the Hermann Staudinger Lecture in 2009 and the Sir Nevill Mott Lecture in 2010.
|
||||
|
||||
Matthew Reisz wrote in Times Higher Education in 2010 that Josephson has long been one of physics' "more colourful figures." His support for unorthodox causes has attracted criticism from fellow scientists since the 1970s, including from Philip Anderson. Josephson regards the criticism as prejudice, and believes that it has served to deprive him of an academic support network.
|
||||
Josephson has repeatedly criticised "science by consensus," arguing that the scientific community is too quick to reject certain kinds of ideas. "Anything goes among the physics community – cosmic wormholes, time travel," he argues, "just so long as it keeps its distance from anything mystical or New Age-ish." Referring to this position as "pathological disbelief," he holds it responsible for the rejection by academic journals of papers on the paranormal. He has compared parapsychology to the theory of continental drift, proposed in 1912 by Alfred Wegener (1880–1930) to explain observations that were otherwise inexplicable, which was resisted and ridiculed until evidence led to its acceptance after Wegener's death.
|
||||
Science writer Martin Gardner criticised Josephson in 1980 for complaining to The New York Review of Books, along with three other physicists, about an article by J. A. Wheeler that ridiculed parapsychology. Several physicists complained in 2001 when, in a Royal Mail booklet celebrating the Nobel Prize's centenary, Josephson wrote that Britain was at the forefront of research into telepathy. Physicist David Deutsch said the Royal Mail had "let itself be hoodwinked" into supporting nonsense, although another physicist, Robert Matthews, suggested that Deutsch was skating on thin ice given the latter's own work on parallel universes and time travel.
|
||||
In 2004, Josephson criticised an experiment by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry to test claims by Russian schoolgirl Natasha Demkina that she could see inside people's bodies using a special kind of vision. The experiment involved her being asked to match six people to their confirmed medical conditions (plus one with none); to pass the test she had to make five correct matches, but made only four. Josephson argued that this was statistically significant, and that the experiment had set her up to fail. One of the researchers, Richard Wiseman, professor of psychology at the University of Hertfordshire, responded by highlighting that the conditions of the experiment had been agreed to before it started, and the potential significance of her claims warranted a higher than normal bar. Keith Rennolis, professor of applied statistics at the University of Greenwich, supported Josephson's position, asserting that the experiment was "woefully inadequate" to determine any effect.
|
||||
Josephson's reputation for promoting unorthodox causes was cemented by his support for the ideas of water memory and cold fusion, both of which are rejected by mainstream scientists. Water memory is purported to provide a possible explanation for homeopathy; it is dismissed by a majority of scientists as pseudoscience, although he has expressed support for it since attending a conference at which French immunologist Jacques Benveniste first proposed it. Cold fusion is the hypothesis that nuclear reactions can occur at room temperature. When Martin Fleischmann, the British chemist who pioneered research into it, died in 2012, Josephson wrote a supportive obituary in the Guardian, and had published in Nature a letter complaining that its obituary had failed to give Fleischmann due credit. Antony Valentini of Imperial College London withdrew Josephson's invitation to a 2010 conference on the de Broglie–Bohm theory because of his work on the paranormal, although it was reinstated after complaints.
|
||||
Josephson's defense of paranormal claims and of cold fusion have led him to being described as an exemplar of a sufferer of the hypothetical Nobel disease.
|
||||
|
||||
== Recognition ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Memberships ===
|
||||
|
||||
=== Awards ===
|
||||
|
||||
=== Honorary degrees ===
|
||||
|
||||
== Selected works ==
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
Josephson voltage standard
|
||||
Josephson vortex
|
||||
Long Josephson junction
|
||||
Pi Josephson junction
|
||||
Phi Josephson junction
|
||||
List of Jewish Nobel laureates
|
||||
List of Nobel laureates in Physics
|
||||
List of physicists
|
||||
Scientific phenomena named after people
|
||||
|
||||
== Notes ==
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
27
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Josephson-3.md
Normal file
27
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Josephson-3.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Brian Josephson"
|
||||
chunk: 4/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Josephson"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:16.307860+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
== Further reading ==
|
||||
Brian Josephson's home page, University of Cambridge.
|
||||
Brian Josephson, academia.edu.
|
||||
"bdj50: Conference in Cambridge to mark the 50th Anniversary of the Publication of Brian Josephson’s Seminal Work", Department of Physics, University of Cambridge.
|
||||
Anderson, Philip. "How Josephson Discovered His Effect", Physics Today, November 1970. Anderson's account of Josephson's discovery; he taught the graduate course in solid-state/many-body theory in which Josephson was a student.
|
||||
Barone, A. and Paterno, G. Physics and Applications of the Josephson Effect, Wiley, 1982.
|
||||
Bertlmann, R. A. and Zeilinger, A. (eds.), Quantum (Un)speakables: From Bell to Quantum Information, Springer, 2002.
|
||||
Buckel, Werner and Kleiner, Reinhold. Superconductivity: Fundamentals and Applications, VCH, 1991.
|
||||
Jibu, Mari and Yasue, Kunio. Quantum Brain Dynamics and Consciousness: An Introduction, John Benjamins Publishing, 1995.
|
||||
Josephson, Brian; Rubik, Beverly A.; Fontana, David; Lorimer, David. "Defining consciousness", Nature, 358(618), 20 August 1992.
|
||||
Rosen, Joe. "Josephson, Brian David," Encyclopedia of Physics, Infobase Publishing, 2009, pp. 165–166.
|
||||
Stapp, Henry. "Quantum Approaches to Consciousness," in Philip David Zelazo, Morris Moscovitch and Evan Thompson (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, 2007.
|
||||
Stenger, Victor J. The Unconscious Quantum: Metaphysics in Modern Physics and Cosmology, Prometheus Books, 1995.
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
|
||||
Brian Josephson on Nobelprize.org including the Nobel Lecture, 12 December 1973 The Discovery of Tunnelling Supercurrents
|
||||
39
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_Breeding_Centre-0.md
Normal file
39
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_Breeding_Centre-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Cattle Breeding Centre"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_Breeding_Centre"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:35.113535+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Cattle Breeding Centre was a veterinary research centre at Shinfield in the United Kingdom.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== History ==
|
||||
The site opened in February 1943 as the Reading Centre for the Artificial Insemination of Dairy Cattle. It had Shorthorn and Guernsey cattle. In January 1944 the site produced the world's first calf produced by artificial insemination, working with the Agricultural Improvement Council. Another site had been opened at Cambridge in November 1942.
|
||||
The site closed in 1991.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Visits ===
|
||||
On Thursday 15 November 1979, the site was visited by President General Suharto of Indonesia; the President had come to power in a coup in 1965, and the visit was attended by protestors from Reading University Amnesty International group. On Wednesday 29 October 1980, the site was visited by the second President of Botswana, Quett Masire.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Demolition ===
|
||||
The site was demolished by the University of Reading and sold for housing (360 houses) in 2003.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Structure ==
|
||||
The site was east of the A327, south of the M4, around a half-mile east of the former headquarters of Berkshire County Council. A short section of the National Cycle Network 50 runs east–west past the former site.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Function ==
|
||||
The site worked with artificial insemination (AI) of cattle and pigs.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
Former Meat Research Institute in North Somerset
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Center for Strategic Research (Iran)"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Strategic_Research_(Iran)"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:36.240689+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Center for Strategic Research or Institute for Strategic Research (Persian: مرکز تحقیقات استراتژیک) is a leading Iranian think tank on strategy issues. It is the research arm of the Iranian state's Expediency Discernment Council. Prof. Mohammad Reza Majidi is the head of center. Before that, the head of organization was Ali Akbar Velayati who replaced former head Hassan Rouhani, the former President of Iran. It was established in 1989.It publishes Foreign Relations Quarterly, Rahbord (Strategy) in Persian and Iranian Review of Foreign Affairsin English.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Departments ==
|
||||
The CSR has six affiliated departments:
|
||||
|
||||
Politics and International Relations Research Department (This department publishes 3 scientific journals: Foreign Relations Quarterly, A quarterly Journal of Strategy, Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs).
|
||||
Infrastructure and Production Research Department (This department publishes Gozaresh Rahbordi (Strategic Report))
|
||||
Economic Research Department (This department publishes Gozaresh-e Pazhouheshhay-e Eqtesadi (Economic Research Report))
|
||||
Cultural Research Department (This department publishes Gozareshat-e Rahbordi (Strategic Reports))
|
||||
Legal Research and Jurisprudential Studies Department (Publication: Gozaresh-e Rahbordi (Strategic Report))
|
||||
Executive and Information Department
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== People ==
|
||||
Presidents
|
||||
Mohammad Mousavi Khoeiniha (1989–1992)
|
||||
Hassan Rouhani (1992–2013)
|
||||
Ali Akbar Velayati (2013–2017)
|
||||
Researchers
|
||||
|
||||
Saeed Hajjarian
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Official website
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Central Research Laboratories"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Research_Laboratories"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:37.392491+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Central Research Laboratories, often referred to as CRL, was a British research laboratory that originally belonged to the EMI Corporation.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== History ==
|
||||
During the period of 1927–29 EMI invested in developing a research and innovation centre that arguably set the tone for many of the technological advancements that would occur over the next 80 years in the UK and was held in extremely high regard globally.
|
||||
After years operating in central London and across various greater London locations, a new company site was built in the 1980s in Hayes, Middlesex. Hayes was often referred to as EMI Town, due to the presence of various company businesses, including the Gramophone Company HQ, which later became known as HMV. The lab's first director was Isaac Shoenberg, a pioneer of television.
|
||||
In 1996 the company formally became known as CRL Ltd after a management buy-out, in which EMI retained a nominal ownership.
|
||||
The company's business model became that of an incubator, that effectively funded innovations and research projects and once the products became 'viable', they were established into standalone subsidiary companies, that typically continued to operate out of their HQ office.
|
||||
In the year 2000, the company floated under a new parent company name Scipher Plc, which for the next two years was the UK's most admired and valuable tech stock on the FTSE 250 index.
|
||||
The Scipher brand included:
|
||||
|
||||
CRL – This remained the heart of the business. It continued to act as the innovation centre of the business and initiated numerous o going research projects and initiatives. It also retained control of the majority of the existing products and technologies that had been developed where commercial agreements already existed. It also continued with Ministry of Defence (MoD) projects, which remained private under official secrecy obligations..
|
||||
QED – An intellectual Property (IP) business that proactively registered and managed new and old patents for its parent company and third-parties, and also offered an infringement investigation and litigation service for companies that felt their patents had been infringed. This alone resulted in millions of pounds of revenue being generated from the patents CRL had inherited as part of the management buy-out from EMI.
|
||||
Sensaura Technology – Originally a research project within CRL and then formed as a separate company in 1998, 'Sensaura 3D positional audio' and 'virtualisation technology', was at one point licensed and appeared on over 250 million hardware devices worldwide, including laptops, PC's, sound cards and headphones. The technology was also developed into a middleware software solution, named GameCODA, that was licensed directly to the computer gaming development sector, (including Lucas Art, Hasbro, Rock Star Games, Criterion), so special effects and sounds could be built directly into their games for the first time. Sensaura 3D positional audio also appeared on the first Microsoft Xbox and later on the Sony PlayStation and Nintendo Wii. The company also won the coveted MacRobert Award for technology and as a result had an exhibition display within the London Science Museum between 2001 and 2002. Sensaura Technology was acquired by US giant Creative Labs in late 2003 and the technology was absorbed into their product portfolio, effectively neutralising the company brand.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Company Decline ===
|
||||
After the Scipher company flotation, many key long-serving staff members started to exercise their extensive share options as they matured and took early retirement. This resulted in the loss of much of the intellectual resource that the company relied upon. The outcome of this, alongside the sale of the 'darling' Sensaura Technology division to global giant Creative Labs, heavily impacted on the company's strategic road map and also had a catastrophic effect on the company's stock market perception – and hence its share price.
|
||||
Scipher Plc very quickly slipped into a difficult position that resulted in the company going into liquidation in 2006.
|
||||
During liquidation process much of the coveted IP and patents that the company owned were sold to technology and manufacturing companies in what one scientific journal referred to as a 'Yard Sale'. This subsequently enabled many to these purchasers to become and extend their positions as market leaders and generate significant business successes and profits.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== CRL Reborn ===
|
||||
After the demise of Scipher Plc many questions were asked about how a historic organisation like CRL was allowed collapse and disappear so easily. Many senior individuals within the scientific and engineering sectors openly referred to it as 'a travesty' that should have been avoided.
|
||||
In 2016, a private investment organisation, with the support of Brunel University London and HEFCE, the Central Research Laboratory was reborn in the form of an innovation incubation centre, only a stone's throw from the previous CRL site in Hayes. Some of CRL's previous employees were invited to the site for the occasion.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Innovations ==
|
||||
CRL was responsible for either developing or initiating many innovations including:
|
||||
|
||||
The EMI 405-line television system, adopted by the BBC, was developed at the site, with early television cameras developed by Australian James Dwyer McGee, and William Francis Tedham (1902–2000), first patented in May 1932
|
||||
The development of the CAT (CT) scanner
|
||||
Early airborne radars such as H2S.
|
||||
Stereo sound and numerous audio mixing technologies
|
||||
The commercialisation of television through CRT improvement
|
||||
Early Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) technology
|
||||
3D audio virtualisation technology
|
||||
Magnetic technology that was applied to the first commercially used credit cards globally
|
||||
It also undertook numerous undisclosed innovation MoD projects.
|
||||
The company also registered early patents and intellectual property rights that are now commonly utilised in technologies worldwide, including:
|
||||
|
||||
Finger print technology
|
||||
Eye retina scanning technologies
|
||||
Other software and digital technologies that are common place in many everyday product today relating to the internet and application development.
|
||||
The company a;so received many awards over the years including the Institute of Physics Fernand Holweck Medal and Prize, in 1986.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Location ==
|
||||
The last company site is east of the A437, north-west of M4 junction 3.
|
||||
In the 1990s, the site became known as CRL. It is situated next to the EMI Archive Trust.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
BBC Research & Development
|
||||
1942 Herefordshire TRE Halifax crash
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
EMI Archive Trust
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Charles A. Lindbergh Chair in Aerospace History"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_A._Lindbergh_Chair_in_Aerospace_History"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:13.200482+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Charles A. Lindbergh Chair in Aerospace History, also known as the Lindbergh Chair, is a one-year senior fellowship hosted by the U.S. National Air and Space Museum (NASM), to assist a scholar in the research and composition of a book about aerospace history. Named for the famous aviator Charles Lindbergh, the position is competitive: one experienced scholar is selected each year from multiple applicants worldwide. Up to $100,000 is granted to the winner.
|
||||
The Lindbergh Chair is one of four research fellowships administered by NASM within the Smithsonian Institution: the others are the Daniel and Florence Guggenheim Fellowship, the A. Verville Fellowship, and the Postdoctoral Earth and Planetary Sciences Fellowship. Announced in 1977 at the 50th anniversary of Lindbergh's famous solo flight, 1978 was the first year that the Lindbergh Chair was occupied—British aviation historian Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith was selected as the first recipient.
|
||||
Each Lindbergh Chair application is judged relative to the suitability of its proposal, the scholarly record of the applicant, the availability of relevant museum staff advisors knowledgeable on the proposed topic, whether the NASM can provide the specific resources, and the applicability of the proposal to NASM's work-in-progress series. The winner is expected to reside in the Washington, D.C., area for nine months to a year, the academic year generally starting in September and ending by the following August. He or she is also expected to take part in discussions with museum staff and to attend professional seminars and colloquia. Along with access to primary research materials, the winner is given the use of an office, a phone and a computer.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Past winners ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
27
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Denial-0.md
Normal file
27
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Denial-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Climate Change Denial"
|
||||
chunk: 1/2
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Denial"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:54.287775+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand is a 2011 non-fiction book about climate-change denial, coauthored by Haydn Washington and John Cook, with a foreword by Naomi Oreskes. Washington had a background in environmental science prior to authoring the work; Cook, educated in physics, founded (2007) the website Skeptical Science, which compiles peer-reviewed evidence of global warming. The book was first published in hardcover and paperback formats in 2011 by Earthscan, a division of Routledge.
|
||||
The book presents an in-depth analysis and refutation of climate-change denial, going over several arguments point-by-point and disproving them with peer-reviewed evidence from the scientific consensus for climate change. The authors assert that those denying climate change engage in tactics including cherry picking data purported to support their specific viewpoints, and attacking the integrity of climate scientists. Washington and Cook use social-science theory to examine the phenomenon of climate-change denial in the wider public, and call this phenomenon a form of pathology.
|
||||
The book traces financial support for climate-change denial to the fossil-fuel industry, asserting that its companies have attempted to influence public opinion on the matter. Washington and Cook write that politicians have a tendency to use weasel words as part of a propaganda tactic through the use of spin, as a way to deflect public interest away from climate change and remain passive on the issue. The authors conclude that if the public ceased engaging in denial, the problem of climate change could be realistically addressed. Climate change denial is a serious threat to the planet and needs to be addressed urgently, as the consequences of inaction are dire.
|
||||
For his research on the book, and efforts in communicating the essence of climate-change science to the general public, John Cook won the 2011 Australian Museum Eureka Prize for Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge. Climate Change Denial received a positive reception in reviews from publications including: The Ecologist, ECOS magazine, academic journal Natures Sciences Sociétés, the journal Education published by the New South Wales Teachers Federation.
|
||||
|
||||
== Background ==
|
||||
The book was coauthored by Australian environmental science researchers Haydn Washington and John Cook. Washington worked for over 30 years as an environmental scientist prior to writing the book. His previously published books on the subject of environmental science include: Ecosolutions (1991), A Sense of Wonder (2002), and The Wilderness Knot (2009). In 2015, Washington was a visiting fellow with the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of New South Wales.
|
||||
Cook's education includes a background in physics. Prior to his work on the book, Cook founded the website Skeptical Science, which compiles peer-reviewed evidence of climate change. He placed on the site the most common assertions made by individuals arguing against the scientific consensus for climate change, with evidence to refute each point they made. After the publication of Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand, Cook coauthored another book on the subject, Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1 – The Physical Climate (2013). In 2015, Cook served as the climate communication fellow at the University of Queensland.
|
||||
Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand was first published in 2011 by Earthscan, a division of Routledge. Both hardcover and paperback editions were released in April 2011. It was released the same year by the publisher in an electronic book format. A second eBook release was published by Routledge in 2012. The book was made available via Kindle by Amazon.com in May 2013.
|
||||
|
||||
== Contents summary ==
|
||||
|
||||
Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand presents a detailed analysis and refutation of climate change denial. In her foreword to the book, Naomi Oreskes writes that people fall victim to the phenomenon of denial due to feeling frightened. The book examines several arguments against global warming, and uses peer-reviewed evidence from the scientific consensus to back-up rationale for disputing the validity of each argument. The methodology of those denying climate change is assessed, including: cherry picking data purporting to support their specific viewpoints, maintaining a high bar for evidence of climate change by those denying it, and criticism of the values of climate scientists themselves. The book puts forth an explanation of why certain individuals, and the wider public, have a tendency to deny the scientific consensus for climate change.
|
||||
The authors discuss the broader concept of denial using social science theory, noting its occurrence appears in society when individuals are frightened or ashamed of their actions. They write that these motivations, when expanded from an individual to wider society, present themselves as a form of disease. The book identifies climate change denial itself as a pathology afflicting the culture of the planet. The authors lament that an inverse relationship exists between an increasing scientific consensus regarding climate change, and a simultaneous increase in denial within the greater public about the same issue.
|
||||
The book identifies a corporate underpinning influencing public opinion by way of companies which derive profit from the fossil fuel industry. Washington and Cook write that politicians often use weasel words as a form of spin and propaganda, in order to act as if they are going to do something about climate change, while in actuality remaining passive on the issue. The authors go on to identify a greater level of denial—within the wider public itself. They argue that society enables denial of climate science through inaction and resistance to the scientific consensus. The authors conclude that if the public stopped denying climate change, the problem itself could realistically be significantly addressed.
|
||||
|
||||
== Reception ==
|
||||
38
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Denial-1.md
Normal file
38
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Denial-1.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Climate Change Denial"
|
||||
chunk: 2/2
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change_Denial"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:54.287775+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The book's coauthor John Cook won the 2011 Eureka Prize for Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge, awarded by the New South Wales Government as part of the Australian Museum Eureka Prizes, and was honoured for his role in communicating the essence of climate change science to the general public. Director of the University of Queensland Global Change Institute, Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, cited Cook's research and authorship of Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand as the rationale behind him winning the award.
|
||||
The Ecologist reviewed the book and described it as: "well researched and painstakingly footnoted". The review concluded: Climate Change Denial is a wise and timely book. ... It deserves an audience". Writing for ECOS magazine, Mary-Lou Considine wrote that the book "dissects objections to the peer-reviewed science" in "forensic detail". Considine recommended the book to those who had previously visited the website Skeptical Science and subsequently wanted to learn more about the wider topic discussed on the site.
|
||||
In a review of the book by the academic journal Natures Sciences Sociétés, the authors' thesis was praised for its ability to bring reason to their analysis: "This book shows how we can break through denial, accept reality, and thus solve the climate crisis". Natures Sciences Sociétés recommended the work for multiple stakeholders, concluding: "It will engage scientists, university students, climate change activists as well as the general public seeking to roll back denial and act".
|
||||
Janine Kitson reviewed the book for the journal Education, a publication of the New South Wales Teachers Federation. Kitson described the work as timely and important within the context of a need for the public to act before a point of no return: "This is a crucial book to read before runaway climate change is truly beyond our control". Her review concluded: "One can only hope that this book will be read by climate deniers so we can start the challenging journey to an ecologically sustainable future".
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
Merchants of Doubt
|
||||
Merchants of Doubt (film)
|
||||
Climate Change Denial Disorder, satirical parody film about a fictional disease
|
||||
Fear, uncertainty and doubt
|
||||
Global warming controversy
|
||||
List of books about the politics of science
|
||||
Media coverage of climate change
|
||||
Watts Up With That?, a blog that promotes climate change skepticism or denial
|
||||
Triumph of Doubt (2020 book)
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
== Further reading ==
|
||||
Jensen, Derrick; McMillan, Stephanie (2007). As the World Burns: 50 Simple Things You Can Do to Stay in Denial. Seven Stories Press. ISBN 978-1-58322-777-0. OCLC 154705030.
|
||||
Marshall, George (2014). Don't Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change. Bloomsbury USA. ISBN 978-1-62040-133-0. OCLC 885302594.
|
||||
Norgaard, Kari Marie (2011). Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-51585-6. OCLC 727944942.
|
||||
Oreskes, Naomi; Conway, Erik M. (2011). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury Press. ISBN 978-1-60819-394-3. OCLC 461631066.
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
|
||||
Cook, John (29 April 2011). "Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand". Skeptical Science. Archived from the original on 22 September 2015. Retrieved 31 October 2015.
|
||||
"Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand". CSIRO Publishing. 2015. Archived from the original on 2 April 2015. Retrieved 31 October 2015.
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/5
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T07:04:49.089600+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:38.249335+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/5
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T07:04:49.089600+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:38.249335+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 3/5
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T07:04:49.089600+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:38.249335+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 4/5
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T07:04:49.089600+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:38.249335+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 5/5
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T07:04:49.089600+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:38.249335+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Consciousness causes collapse"
|
||||
chunk: 1/2
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:30.406153+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The postulate that consciousness causes collapse is an interpretation of quantum mechanics in which consciousness is postulated to be the main mechanism behind the process of measurement in quantum mechanics. It is a historical interpretation of quantum mechanics that is largely discarded by modern physicists. The idea is attributed to Eugene Wigner who wrote about it in the 1960s, but traces of the idea appear as early as the 1930s. Wigner later rejected this interpretation in the 1970s and 1980s.
|
||||
This interpretation has been tied to the origin of pseudoscientific currents and New Age movements, specifically quantum mysticism.
|
||||
|
||||
== History ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Earlier work ===
|
||||
According to Werner Heisenberg’s recollections in Physics and Beyond, Niels Bohr is said to have rejected the necessity of a conscious observer in quantum mechanics as early as 1927.
|
||||
In his 1932 book Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, John von Neumann argued that the mathematics of quantum mechanics allows the collapse of the wave function to be placed at any position in the causal chain from the measurement device to the "subjective perception" of the human observer. However von Neumann did not explicitly relate measurement with consciousness. In 1939, Fritz London and Edmond Bauer argued that the consciousness of the observer played an important role in measurement. However London wrote about consciousness in terms of philosophical phenomenology and not necessarily as a physical process.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Wigner's work ===
|
||||
The idea that "consciousness causes collapse" is attributed to Eugene Wigner who first wrote about it in his 1961 article "Remarks on the mind-body question" and developed it further during the 1960s. Wigner reformulated the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment as Wigner's friend and proposed that the consciousness of an observer is the demarcation line that precipitates collapse of the wave function, independent of any realist interpretation. The mind is postulated to be non-physical and the only true measurement apparatus.
|
||||
The idea was criticized early by Abner Shimony in 1963 and by Hilary Putnam a year later.
|
||||
Wigner discarded the conscious collapse interpretation in the later 1970s. In a 1982 lecture, Wigner said that his early view of quantum mechanics should be criticized as solipsism. In 1984, he wrote that he was convinced out of it by the 1970 work of H. Dieter Zeh on quantum decoherence and macroscopic quantum phenomena.
|
||||
|
||||
=== After Wigner ===
|
||||
The idea of consciousness causing collapse has been promoted and developed by Henry Stapp, a member of the Fundamental Fysiks Group, since 1993.
|
||||
|
||||
== Description ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Measurement in standard quantum mechanics ===
|
||||
In the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation, quantum mechanics predicts only the probabilities for different observed experimental outcomes. What constitutes an observer or a measurement is not directly specified by the theory, and the behavior of a system under measurement and observation is completely different from its usual behavior: the wavefunction that describes a system spreads out into an ever-larger superposition of different possible situations. However, during observation, the wavefunction describing the system collapses to one of several options. If there is no observation, this collapse does not occur, and none of the options ever become less likely.
|
||||
It can be predicted using quantum mechanics, absent a collapse postulate, that an observer observing a quantum superposition will turn into a superposition of different observers seeing different things. The observer will have a wavefunction which describes all the possible outcomes. Still, in actual experience, an observer never senses a superposition, but always senses that one of the outcomes has occurred with certainty. This apparent conflict between a wavefunction description and classical experience is called the problem of observation (see Measurement problem).
|
||||
|
||||
=== Consciousness-causes-collapse interpretation ===
|
||||
This consciousness causes collapse interpretation has been summarized thus:
|
||||
|
||||
The rules of quantum mechanics are correct but there is only one system which may be treated with quantum mechanics, namely the entire material world. There exist external observers which cannot be treated within quantum mechanics, namely human (and perhaps animal) minds, which perform measurements on the brain causing wave function collapse.
|
||||
|
||||
Stapp has argued for the concept as follows:
|
||||
|
||||
From the point of view of the mathematics of quantum theory it makes no sense to treat a measuring device as intrinsically different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. A device is just another part of the physical universe... Moreover, the conscious thoughts of a human observer ought to be causally connected most directly and immediately to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happening out at some measuring device... Our bodies and brains thus become ... parts of the quantum mechanically described physical universe. Treating the entire physical universe in this unified way provides a conceptually simple and logically coherent theoretical foundation...
|
||||
|
||||
== Objections to the interpretation ==
|
||||
Wigner shifted away from "consciousness causes collapse" in his later years. This was partly because he was embarrassed that "consciousness causes collapse" can lead to a kind of solipsism, but also because he decided that he had been wrong to try to apply quantum physics at the scale of everyday life (specifically, he rejected his initial idea of treating macroscopic objects as isolated systems).
|
||||
Bohr said circa 1927 that it "still makes no difference whether the observer is a man, an animal, or a piece of apparatus."
|
||||
This interpretation relies upon an interactionist form of dualism that is inconsistent with the materialism that is commonly used to understand the brain, and accepted by most scientists. (Materialism assumes that consciousness has no special role in relation to quantum mechanics.) The measurement problem notwithstanding, they point to a causal closure of physics, suggesting a problem with how consciousness and matter might interact, reminiscent of objections to Descartes' substance dualism.
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Consciousness causes collapse"
|
||||
chunk: 2/2
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:30.406153+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The only form of interactionist dualism that has seemed even remotely tenable in the contemporary picture is one that exploits certain properties of quantum mechanics. There are two ways this might go. First, some [e.g., Eccles 1986] have appealed to the existence of quantum indeterminacy, and have suggested that a nonphysical consciousness might be responsible for filling the resultant causal gaps, determining which values some physical magnitudes might take within an apparently "probabilistic" distribution... This is an audacious and interesting suggestion, but it has a number of problems... A second way in which quantum mechanics bears on the issue of causal closure lies with the fact that in some interpretations of the quantum formalism, consciousness itself plays a vital causal role, being required to bring about the so-called "collapse of the wave-function." This collapse is supposed to occur upon any act of measurement; and in one interpretation, the only way to distinguish a measurement from a nonmeasurement is via the presence of consciousness. This theory is certainly not universally accepted (for a start, it presupposes that consciousness is not itself physical, surely contrary to the views of most physicists), and I do not accept it myself, but in any case it seems that the kind of causal work consciousness performs here is quite different from the kind required for consciousness to play a role in directing behavior... In any case, all versions of interactionist dualism have a conceptual problem that suggests that they are less successful in avoiding epiphenomenalism than they might seem; or at least they are no better off than naturalistic dualism. Even on these views, there is a sense in which the phenomenal is irrelevant. We can always subtract the phenomenal component from any explanatory account, yielding a purely causal component.
|
||||
The interpretation has also been criticized for not explaining which things have sufficient consciousness to collapse the wave function. Also, it posits an important role for the conscious mind, and it has been questioned how this could be the case for the earlier universe, before consciousness had evolved or emerged. It has been argued that "[consciousness causes collapse] does not allow sensible discussion of Big Bang cosmology or biological evolution". For example, Roger Penrose remarked: "[T]he evolution of conscious life on this planet is due to appropriate mutations having taken place at various times. These, presumably, are quantum events, so they would exist only in linearly superposed form until they finally led to the evolution of a conscious being—whose very existence depends on all the right mutations having 'actually' taken place!" Others further suppose a universal mind (see also panpsychism and panexperientialism). Other researchers have expressed similar objections to the introduction of any subjective element in the collapse of the wavefunction.
|
||||
|
||||
== Testability ==
|
||||
It has been argued that the results of delayed-choice quantum eraser experiments empirically falsify this interpretation. However, the argument was shown to be invalid because an interference pattern would only be visible after post-measurement detections were correlated through use of a coincidence counter; if that was not true, the experiment would allow signaling into the past. The delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment has also been used to argue for support of this interpretation, but, as with other arguments, none of the cited references prove or falsify this interpretation.
|
||||
The central role played by consciousness in this interpretation naturally calls for use of psychological experiments to verify or falsify it. One such approach relies on explaining the empirical presentiment effect quantum mechanically. Another approach makes use of the psychological priming effect to design an appropriate test. Both methods claim verification success.
|
||||
|
||||
== Reception ==
|
||||
A poll was conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 2011 using 33 participants (including physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers). Researchers found that 6% of participants (2 of the 33) indicated that they believed the observer "plays a distinguished physical role (e.g., wave-function collapse by consciousness)". This poll also states that 55% (18 of the 33) indicated that they believed the observer "plays a fundamental role in the application of the formalism but plays no distinguished physical role". They also mention that "Popular accounts have sometimes suggested that the Copenhagen interpretation attributes such a role to consciousness. In our view, this is to misunderstand the Copenhagen interpretation."
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
Interpretations of quantum mechanics
|
||||
Measurement in quantum mechanics
|
||||
Quantum mind
|
||||
Quantum Zeno effect
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Don N. Page, Mindful Sensationalism: A Quantum Framework for Consciousness (2001), arXiv
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/3
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_thesis"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T07:04:50.355903+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:39.508191+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/3
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_thesis"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T07:04:50.355903+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:39.508191+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 3/3
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_thesis"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T07:04:50.355903+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:39.508191+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
39
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Industry-0.md
Normal file
39
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Industry-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Darwin Industry"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Industry"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:40.736551+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Darwin Industry refers to historical scholarship about, and the large community of historians of science working on, Charles Darwin's life, work, and influence. The term "has a slightly derogatory connotation, as if the scale of the research has gotten out of control with people cranking out studies on perhaps less and less important aspects of Darwin's work"; but it was originally a self-designation of the scholars who began re-evaluating Darwin and studying his manuscripts and correspondence in the second half of the 20th century.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Darwin's manuscripts and correspondence ==
|
||||
One of the most significant projects of the Darwin Industry has been the systematic publication of all of Darwin's unpublished writings. Two volumes of the Life and Letters of Charles Darwin were published in 1887 along with The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, edited by Francis Darwin; two volumes of More Letters of Charles Darwin were published in 1902. Francis Darwin edited 1909 editions of Darwin's notebooks related to the inception of his theory. Darwin's granddaughter Nora Barlow pieced together the 1930 Diary of the Beagle from Darwin's unpublished notebooks. A flood of Darwiniana was published in the mid-twentieth century, especially by Darwin's descendants, leading up to the 1959 Darwin Centennial, including an un-redacted edition of Darwin's autobiography edited by Barlow. However, all this made up only a fraction of Darwin's correspondence and other unpublished writings, and much of what was published was incomplete. By the 1990s there were two different versions of The Works of Charles Darwin, an 18 volume edition by AMS Press and a more scholarly 29 volume edition by William Pickering, along with an annotated scholarly volume of Charles Darwin 's Notebooks, 1836-1844.
|
||||
More significantly, two projects now make most of the primary material relating to Darwin available. Since 1974 the Darwin Correspondence Project has been locating, annotating and publishing the complete surviving correspondence of Darwin, including sixteen volumes (of an expected 30) published between 1985 and 2008 (covering the letters through 1868). An online database makes notes and transcripts of letters available online. The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online makes available all of Darwin's print publications, private papers and manuscripts, together with a growing number of supplementary works. Earlier volumes of published letters are included, but it does not duplicate the Correspondence Project publications. It began in 2002 as a pilot website, The writings of Charles Darwin on the web, and in October 2006 it was launched internationally as a new website. It is claimed to be the largest and most widely used Darwin resource ever created.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Biographies ==
|
||||
A substantial number of Darwin biographies were published before the 1959 Darwin Centennial, but from then until the 1990s, the Darwin Industry had produced only a handful of substantial Darwin biographies, several of which had unusual aspects (such as speculations about Darwin's sex life and psychoanalytic interpretations of his illnesses). Much of the biographical work of Darwin scholars was focused on specific instances and historical problems related to Darwin's life (and published as articles or monographs). Since the 1990s, at least three well-received scholarly biographies have been produced: Darwin (1991) by Adrian Desmond and James Moore (with the alternative title Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist when published in America); Charles Darwin: The Man and His Influence (1996) by Peter J. Bowler; and Janet Browne's two-volume biography, Charles Darwin: Voyaging (1995) and Charles Darwin: The Power of Place (2002). With the 2005 publication of Sandra Herbert's Charles Darwin: Geologist, some scholars are questioning whether this is, or ought to be, the end of the Darwin Industry, since most of Darwin's life and work has been explored so exhaustively; however, Darwin scholars see continuing potential, especially since Darwin's complete manuscripts are not yet published and because "Darwin was exceptional and inspirational".
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Darwin-related topics ==
|
||||
The Darwin Industry has also stretched to many related figures before, during and after Darwin's time. Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin has been a subject of great interest, and the broad philosophical currents of Naturphilosophie and Romanticism in science during the 19th century are still being explored. Studies of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Georges Cuvier, Charles Lyell, Thomas Henry Huxley, Richard Owen, Alfred Russel Wallace and many others have all been influenced to a greater or lesser degree by the work of the Darwin Industry. Because of the unusual hybrid nature of The Origin of Species as both a popular and scientific work, one major focus of the Darwin Industry has been the role of popularization and education in the spread of Darwin's theory: the popular work of Huxley, Ernst Haeckel, Herbert Spencer, and most dramatically, Robert Chambers (who wrote the 1844 sensation Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation), is increasingly seen as important in its own right in the history of evolutionary thought.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Notes ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
Maura C. Flannery, "The Darwin Industry", The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 68, No. 3 (March 2006), pp. 163–166
|
||||
Michael Ruse, "The Darwin Industry: A Guide", Victorian Studies, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Winter, 1996), pp. 217–235
|
||||
Timothy Lenoir, "Essay Review: The Darwin Industry", Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 20, No. 1 (March 1987), pp. 115–130
|
||||
David Oldroyd; Michael Ruse; Paul Pearson; and Sandra Herbert, "Review Symposium: Darwin's Geology: The End of the Darwin Industry?", Metascience, Vol. 16, No. 1 (April 2007), pp. 25–50, doi:10.1007/s11016-006-9069-2.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Darwin Correspondence Project
|
||||
The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online
|
||||
30
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm-0.md
Normal file
30
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "David Bohm"
|
||||
chunk: 1/5
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:05.696760+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
David Joseph Bohm (; 20 December 1917 – 27 October 1992) was an American physicist who has been described as one of the most significant theoretical physicists of the 20th century and who contributed unorthodox ideas to quantum theory, neuropsychology and the philosophy of mind. Among his many contributions to physics is his causal and deterministic interpretation of quantum theory known as De Broglie–Bohm theory.
|
||||
Bohm advanced the view that quantum physics meant that the old Cartesian model of reality—that there are two kinds of substance, the mental and the physical, that somehow interact—was too limited. To complement it, he developed a mathematical and physical theory of "implicate" and "explicate" order. He also believed that the brain, at the cellular level, works according to the mathematics of some quantum effects, and postulated that thought is distributed and non-localised just as quantum entities are. Bohm's main concern was with understanding the nature of reality in general and of consciousness in particular as a coherent whole, which according to Bohm is never static or complete.
|
||||
Bohm warned of the dangers of rampant reason and technology, advocating instead the need for genuine supportive dialogue, which he claimed could bridge and unify conflicting and troublesome divisions in the social world.
|
||||
Born in the United States, Bohm obtained his Ph.D. under J. Robert Oppenheimer at the University of California, Berkeley. Due to his Communist affiliations, he was the subject of a federal government investigation in 1949, leading to his suspension from Princeton University and prompting him to leave the U.S. He pursued his career in several countries, becoming first a Brazilian and then a British citizen. He abandoned Marxism in the wake of the Hungarian Uprising in 1956.
|
||||
|
||||
== Youth and college ==
|
||||
Bohm was born in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, to an Austrian Jewish immigrant father, Samuel Bohm, and a Lithuanian Jewish mother, Frieda Popky. He was raised mainly by his father, a furniture-store owner and assistant of the local rabbi. Despite being raised in a Jewish family, he became an agnostic in his teenage years. Bohm attended Pennsylvania State College (now Pennsylvania State University), graduating in 1939, and then the California Institute of Technology, for one year. He then transferred to the theoretical physics group directed by Robert Oppenheimer at the University of California, Berkeley Radiation Laboratory, where he obtained his doctorate.
|
||||
Bohm lived in the same neighborhood as some of Oppenheimer's other graduate students (Giovanni Rossi Lomanitz, Joseph Weinberg, and Max Friedman) and with them became increasingly involved in radical politics. He was active in communist and communist-backed organizations, including the Young Communist League, the Campus Committee to Fight Conscription, and the Committee for Peace Mobilization. During his time at the Radiation Laboratory, Bohm was in a relationship with Betty Friedan and also helped to organize a local chapter of the Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Technicians, a small labor union affiliated to the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO).
|
||||
|
||||
== Work and doctorate ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Manhattan Project contributions ===
|
||||
During World War II, the Manhattan Project mobilized much of Berkeley's physics research in the effort to produce the first atomic bomb. Though Oppenheimer had asked Bohm to work with him at Los Alamos (the top-secret laboratory established in 1942 to design the atom bomb), the project's director, Brigadier General Leslie Groves, would not approve Bohm's security clearance after seeing evidence of his politics and his close friendship with Weinberg, who had been suspected of espionage.
|
||||
During the war, Bohm remained at Berkeley, where he taught physics and conducted research in plasma, the synchrotron and the synchrocyclotron. He completed his PhD in 1943 by an unusual circumstance. According to biographer F. David Peat, "The scattering calculations (of collisions of protons and deuterons) that he had completed proved useful to the Manhattan Project and were immediately classified. Without security clearance, Bohm was denied access to his own work; not only would he be barred from defending his thesis, he was not even allowed to write his own thesis in the first place!" To satisfy the university, Oppenheimer certified that Bohm had successfully completed the research. Bohm later performed theoretical calculations for the Calutrons at the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. These calculations were used for the electromagnetic enrichment of uranium for the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.
|
||||
|
||||
=== McCarthyism and leaving the United States ===
|
||||
After the war, Bohm became an assistant professor at Princeton University. He also worked closely with Albert Einstein at the nearby Institute for Advanced Study. In May 1949, the House Un-American Activities Committee called upon Bohm to testify because of his previous ties to unionism and suspected communists. Bohm invoked his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify, and he refused to give evidence against his colleagues.
|
||||
In 1950, Bohm was arrested for refusing to answer the committee's questions. He was acquitted in May 1951, but Princeton had already suspended him. After his acquittal, Bohm's colleagues sought to have him reinstated at Princeton, but Princeton President Harold W. Dodds decided not to renew Bohm's contract. Although Einstein considered appointing him as his research assistant at the institute, IAS President Oppenheimer "opposed the idea and [...] advised his former student to leave the country". His request to go to the University of Manchester received Einstein's support but was unsuccessful. Bohm then left for Brazil to assume a professorship of physics at the University of São Paulo, at Jayme Tiomno's invitation and on the recommendation of both Einstein and Oppenheimer.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Quantum theory and Bohm diffusion ===
|
||||
35
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm-1.md
Normal file
35
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm-1.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "David Bohm"
|
||||
chunk: 2/5
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:05.696760+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
During his early period, Bohm made a number of significant contributions to physics, particularly quantum mechanics and relativity theory. As a postgraduate at Berkeley, he developed a theory of plasmas, discovering the electron phenomenon known as Bohm diffusion. His first book, Quantum Theory, published in 1951, was well received by Einstein, among others. But Bohm became dissatisfied with the orthodox interpretation of quantum theory he wrote about in that book. Starting from the realization that the WKB approximation of quantum mechanics leads to deterministic equations and convinced that a mere approximation could not turn a probabilistic theory into a deterministic theory, he doubted the inevitability of the conventional approach to quantum mechanics.
|
||||
Bohm's aim was not to set out a deterministic, mechanical viewpoint but to show that it was possible to attribute properties to an underlying reality, in contrast to the conventional approach. He began to develop his own interpretation (the De Broglie–Bohm theory, also called the pilot wave theory), the predictions of which agreed perfectly with the non-deterministic quantum theory. He initially called his approach a hidden variable theory, but he later called it ontological theory, reflecting his view that a stochastic process underlying the phenomena described by his theory might one day be found. Bohm and his colleague Basil Hiley later stated that they had found their own choice of terms of an "interpretation in terms of hidden variables" to be too restrictive, especially since their variables, position and momentum, "are not actually hidden".
|
||||
Bohm's work and the EPR argument became the major factor motivating John Stewart Bell's inequality, which rules out local hidden variable theories; the full consequences of Bell's work are still being investigated.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Brazil ===
|
||||
When Bohm arrived in Brazil on 10 October 1951, the US Consul in São Paulo confiscated his passport, informing him he could retrieve it only to return to his country, which reportedly frightened Bohm and significantly lowered his spirits, as he had hoped to travel to Europe. He applied for and received Brazilian citizenship, but by law, had to give up his US citizenship; he was able to reclaim it only decades later, in 1986, after pursuing a lawsuit.
|
||||
At the University of São Paulo, Bohm worked on the causal theory that became the subject of his publications in 1952. Jean-Pierre Vigier traveled to São Paulo, where he worked with Bohm for three months; Ralph Schiller, student of cosmologist Peter Bergmann, was his assistant for two years; he worked with Tiomno and Walther Schützer; and Mario Bunge stayed to work with him for one year. He was in contact with Brazilian physicists Mário Schenberg, Jean Meyer, Leite Lopes, and had discussions on occasion with visitors to Brazil, including Richard Feynman, Isidor Rabi, Léon Rosenfeld, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, Herbert L. Anderson, Donald Kerst, Marcos Moshinsky, Alejandro Medina, and the former assistant to Heisenberg, Guido Beck, who encouraged him in his work and helped him obtain funding. The Brazilian CNPq explicitly supported his work on the causal theory and funded several researchers around Bohm. His work with Vigier was the beginning of a long-standing cooperation between the two and Louis De Broglie, in particular, on connections to the hydrodynamics model proposed by Madelung.
|
||||
Yet the causal theory met much resistance and skepticism, with many physicists holding the Copenhagen interpretation to be the only viable approach to quantum mechanics. Bohm and Vigier both emphasized causality, not determinism. In this context, Bohm proposed a causal approach in which the material world could be represented at an infinite number of levels, with stochastic dynamics at every level.
|
||||
From 1951 to 1953, Bohm and David Pines published the articles in which they introduced the random phase approximation and proposed the plasmon.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Bohm and Aharonov form of the EPR paradox ===
|
||||
In 1955, Bohm relocated to Israel, where he spent two years working at the Technion, in Haifa. There, he met Sarah Woolfson, whom he married in 1956. In 1957, Bohm and his student Yakir Aharonov published a new version of the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) paradox, reformulating the original argument in terms of spin. It was that form of the EPR paradox that was discussed by John Stewart Bell in his famous paper of 1964.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Aharonov–Bohm effect ===
|
||||
|
||||
In 1957, Bohm relocated to the United Kingdom as a research fellow at the University of Bristol. In 1959, Bohm and Aharonov discovered the Aharonov–Bohm effect, showing how a magnetic field could affect a region of space in which the field had been shielded, but its vector potential did not vanish there. That showed for the first time that the magnetic vector potential, hitherto a mathematical convenience, could have real physical (quantum) effects.
|
||||
In 1961, Bohm was made professor of theoretical physics at the University of London's Birkbeck College, becoming emeritus in 1987. His collected papers are stored there.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Implicate and explicate order ===
|
||||
|
||||
At Birkbeck College, much of the work of Bohm and Basil Hiley expanded on the notion of implicate, explicate, and generative orders proposed by Bohm. In the view of Bohm and Hiley, "things, such as particles, objects, and indeed subjects" exist as "semi-autonomous quasi-local features" of an underlying activity. Such features can be considered to be independent only up to a certain level of approximation in which certain criteria are fulfilled. In that picture, the classical limit for quantum phenomena, in terms of a condition that the action function is not much greater than the Planck constant, indicates one such criterion. They used the word "holomovement" for the activity in such orders.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Holonomic model of the brain ===
|
||||
|
||||
In collaboration with Stanford University neuroscientist Karl H. Pribram, Bohm was involved in the early development of the holonomic model of the functioning of the brain, a model for human cognition that is drastically different from conventionally-accepted ideas. Bohm worked with Pribram on the theory that the brain operates in a manner that is similar to a hologram, in accordance with quantum mathematical principles and the characteristics of wave patterns.
|
||||
26
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm-2.md
Normal file
26
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm-2.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "David Bohm"
|
||||
chunk: 3/5
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:05.696760+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
=== Consciousness and thought ===
|
||||
In addition to his scientific work, Bohm was deeply interested in exploring the nature of consciousness, with particular attention to the role of thought as it relates to attention, motivation, and conflict in the individual and in society. Those concerns were a natural extension of his earlier interest in Marxist ideology and Hegelian philosophy. His views were brought into sharper focus through extensive interactions with the philosopher, speaker, and writer Jiddu Krishnamurti, beginning in 1961. Their collaboration lasted a quarter of a century, and their recorded dialogues were published in several volumes.
|
||||
Bohm's prolonged involvement with the philosophy of Krishnamurti was regarded somewhat skeptically by some of his scientific peers. An examination in 2017 of the relationship between the two men presents it in a more positive light and shows that Bohm's work in the psychological field was complementary to and compatible with his contributions to theoretical physics.
|
||||
The mature expression of Bohm's views in the psychological field was presented in a seminar conducted in 1990 at the Oak Grove School, founded by Krishnamurti in Ojai, California. It was one of a series of seminars held by Bohm at Oak Grove School, and it was published as Thought as a System. In the seminar, Bohm described the pervasive influence of thought throughout society, including the many erroneous assumptions about the nature of thought and its effects in daily life.
|
||||
In the seminar, Bohm develops several interrelated themes. He points out that thought is the ubiquitous tool that is used to solve every kind of problem: personal, social, scientific, and so on. Yet thought, he maintains, is also inadvertently the source of many of those problems. He recognizes and acknowledges the irony of the situation: it is as if one gets sick by going to the doctor.
|
||||
Bohm maintains that thought is a system, in the sense that it is an interconnected network of concepts, ideas and assumptions that pass seamlessly between individuals and throughout society. If there is a fault in the functioning of thought, therefore, it must be a systemic fault, which infects the entire network. The thought that is brought to bear to resolve any given problem, therefore, is susceptible to the same flaw that created the problem it is trying to solve.
|
||||
Thought proceeds as if it is merely reporting objectively, but in fact, it is often coloring and distorting perception in unexpected ways. What is required in order to correct the distortions introduced by thought, according to Bohm, is a form of proprioception, or self-awareness. Neural receptors throughout the body inform us directly of our physical position and movement, but there is no corresponding awareness of the activity of thought. Such an awareness would represent psychological proprioception and would enable the possibility of perceiving and correcting the unintended consequences of the thinking process.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Further interests ===
|
||||
In his book On Creativity, quoting Alfred Korzybski, the Polish-American who developed the field of General Semantics, Bohm expressed the view that "metaphysics is an expression of a world view" and is "thus to be regarded as an art form, resembling poetry in some ways and mathematics in others, rather than as an attempt to say something true about reality as a whole".
|
||||
Bohm was keenly aware of various ideas outside the scientific mainstream. In his book Science, Order and Creativity, Bohm referred to the views of various biologists on the evolution of the species, including Rupert Sheldrake. He also knew the ideas of Wilhelm Reich.
|
||||
Contrary to many other scientists, Bohm did not exclude the paranormal out of hand. Bohm temporarily even held Uri Geller's bending of keys and spoons to be possible, prompting warning remarks by his colleague Basil Hiley that it might undermine the scientific credibility of their work in physics. Martin Gardner reported this in a Skeptical Inquirer article and also critiqued the views of Jiddu Krishnamurti, with whom Bohm had met in 1959 and had had many subsequent exchanges. Gardner said that Bohm's view of the interconnectedness of mind and matter "flirted with panpsychism" (on one occasion, Bohm summarized: "Even the electron is informed with a certain level of mind.").
|
||||
|
||||
=== Bohm dialogue ===
|
||||
|
||||
To address societal problems during his later years, Bohm wrote a proposal for a solution that has become known as "Bohm Dialogue", in which equal status and "free space" form the most important prerequisites of communication and the appreciation of differing personal beliefs. An essential ingredient in this form of dialogue is that participants "suspend" immediate action or judgment and give themselves and each other the opportunity to become aware of the thought process itself. Bohm suggested that if the "dialogue groups" were experienced on a sufficiently wide scale, they could help overcome the isolation and fragmentation that Bohm observed in society.
|
||||
60
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm-3.md
Normal file
60
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm-3.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "David Bohm"
|
||||
chunk: 4/5
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:05.696760+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
== Later life ==
|
||||
Bohm continued his work in quantum physics after his retirement, in 1987. His final work, the posthumously published The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory (1993), resulted from a decades-long collaboration with Basil Hiley. He also spoke to audiences across Europe and North America on the importance of dialogue as a form of sociotherapy, a concept he borrowed from London psychiatrist and practitioner of Group Analysis Patrick de Maré, and he had a series of meetings with the Dalai Lama. He was elected Fellow of the Royal Society in 1990.
|
||||
Near the end of his life, Bohm began to experience a recurrence of the depression that he had suffered earlier in life. He was admitted to the Maudsley Hospital in South London on 10 May 1991. His condition worsened and it was decided that the only treatment that might help him was electroconvulsive therapy. Bohm's wife consulted psychiatrist David Shainberg, Bohm's longtime friend and collaborator, who agreed that electroconvulsive treatments were probably his only option. Bohm showed improvement from the treatments and was released on 29 August, but his depression returned and was treated with medication.
|
||||
On the day he died, Bohm said: "You know, it's tantalizing. I feel I'm on the edge of something."
|
||||
Bohm died after suffering a heart attack in Hendon, London, on 27 October 1992, aged 74.
|
||||
The film Infinite Potential is based on Bohm's life and studies; it adopts the same name as the biography by F. David Peat.
|
||||
|
||||
== Reception of causal theory ==
|
||||
In the early 1950s, Bohm's causal quantum theory of hidden variables was mostly negatively received, with a widespread tendency among physicists to systematically ignore both Bohm personally and his ideas. There was a significant revival of interest in Bohm's ideas in the late 1950s and the early 1960s; the Ninth Symposium of the Colston Research Society in Bristol in 1957 was a key turning point toward greater tolerance of his ideas.
|
||||
|
||||
== Publications ==
|
||||
1951. Quantum Theory, New York: Prentice Hall. 1989 reprint, New York: Dover, ISBN 0-486-65969-0
|
||||
1957. Causality and Chance in Modern Physics, 1961 Harper edition reprinted in 1980 by Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania Press, ISBN 0-8122-1002-6
|
||||
1962. Quanta and Reality, A Symposium, with N. R. Hanson and Mary B. Hesse, from a BBC program published by the American Research Council
|
||||
1965. The Special Theory of Relativity, New York: W.A. Benjamin.
|
||||
1980. Wholeness and the Implicate Order, London: Routledge, ISBN 0-7100-0971-2, 1983 Ark paperback: ISBN 0-7448-0000-5, 2002 paperback: ISBN 0-415-28979-3
|
||||
1985. Unfolding Meaning: A weekend of dialogue with David Bohm (Donald Factor, editor), Gloucestershire: Foundation House, ISBN 0-948325-00-3, 1987 Ark paperback: ISBN 0-7448-0064-1, 1996 Routledge paperback: ISBN 0-415-13638-5
|
||||
1985. The Ending of Time, with Jiddu Krishnamurti, San Francisco: Harper, ISBN 0-06-064796-5.
|
||||
1987. Science, Order, and Creativity, with F. David Peat. London: Routledge. 2nd ed. 2000. ISBN 0-415-17182-2.
|
||||
1989. Meaning And Information, In: P. Pylkkänen (ed.): The Search for Meaning: The New Spirit in Science and Philosophy, Crucible, The Aquarian Press, 1989, ISBN 978-1-85274-061-0.
|
||||
1991. Changing Consciousness: Exploring the Hidden Source of the Social, Political and Environmental Crises Facing our World (a dialogue of words and images), coauthor Mark Edwards, Harper San Francisco, ISBN 0-06-250072-4
|
||||
1992. Thought as a System (transcript of seminar held in Ojai, California, from 30 November to 2 December 1990), London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-11980-4.
|
||||
1993. The Undivided Universe: An ontological interpretation of quantum theory, with B.J. Hiley, London: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-12185-X (final work)
|
||||
1996. On Dialogue. editor Lee Nichol. London: Routledge, hardcover: ISBN 0-415-14911-8, paperback: ISBN 0-415-14912-6, 2004 edition: ISBN 0-415-33641-4
|
||||
1998. On Creativity, editor Lee Nichol. London: Routledge, hardcover: ISBN 0-415-17395-7, paperback: ISBN 0-415-17396-5, 2004 edition: ISBN 0-415-33640-6
|
||||
1999. Limits of Thought: Discussions, with Jiddu Krishnamurti, London: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-19398-2.
|
||||
1999. Bohm–Biederman Correspondence: Creativity and Science, with Charles Biederman. editor Paavo Pylkkänen. ISBN 0-415-16225-4.
|
||||
2002. The Essential David Bohm. editor Lee Nichol. London: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-26174-0. preface by the Dalai Lama
|
||||
2017. David Bohm: Causality and Chance, Letters to Three Women, editor Chris Talbot. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-55491-4.
|
||||
2018. The Unity of Everything: A Conversation with David Bohm, with Nish Dubashia. Hamburg, Germany: Tredition, ISBN 978-3-7439-9299-3.
|
||||
2020. David Bohm's Critique of Modern Physics, Letters to Jeffrey Bub, 1966–1969, Foreword by Jeffrey Bub, editor Chris Talbot. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. ISBN 978-3-030-45536-1.
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
== Sources ==
|
||||
David Z. Albert (May 1994). "Bohm's Alternative to Quantum Mechanics". Scientific American. 270 (5): 58. Bibcode:1994SciAm.270e..58A. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0594-58.
|
||||
Joye, S.R. (2017). The Little Book of Consciousness: Pribram's Holonomic Brain Theory and Bohm's Implicate Order. The Viola Institute. ISBN 978-0-9988785-4-6.
|
||||
Greeg Herken (2002). Brotherhood of the Bomb: The Tangled Lives and Loyalties of Robert Oppenheimer, Ernest Lawrence, and Edward Teller. Holt. ISBN 0-8050-6589-X. (information on Bohm's work at Berkeley and his dealings with HUAC)
|
||||
F. David Peat (1997). Infinite Potential: the Life and Times of David Bohm. Addison Wesley. ISBN 0-201-40635-7.
|
||||
B.J. Hiley, F. David Peat, ed. (1987). Quantum Implications: Essays in Honour of David Bohm. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-06960-2.
|
||||
David Bohm; Sarah Bohm (1992). Thought as a System. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-11980-4. (transcript of seminar held in Ojai, California, from 30 November to 2 December 1990)
|
||||
Peter R. Holland (2000). The Quantum Theory of Motion: an account of the de Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-48543-6.
|
||||
|
||||
== Further reading ==
|
||||
William Keepin: A life of dialogue between science and spirit – David Bohm. In World Scriptures: Leland P. Stewart (ed.): Guidelines for a Unity-and-Diversity Global Civilization, World Scriptures Vol. 2, AuthorHouse. (2009) ISBN 978-1-4389-8086-7, pp. 5–13
|
||||
William Keepin: Lifework of David Bohm. River of Truth, Re-vision, vol. 16, no. 1, 1993, p. 32 (online at scribd)
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
35
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm-4.md
Normal file
35
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm-4.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "David Bohm"
|
||||
chunk: 5/5
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:05.696760+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The David Bohm Society
|
||||
The Bohm Krishnamurti Project: Exploring the Legacy of the David Bohm and Jiddu Krishnamurti Relationship
|
||||
David Bohm's ideas about Dialogue
|
||||
the David_Bohm_Hub. Includes compilations of David Bohm's life and work in form of texts, audio, video, and pictures
|
||||
Lifework of David Bohm: River of Truth at the Wayback Machine (archived 25 January 2021): Article by Will Keepin (PDF-version at the Wayback Machine (archived 22 February 2016))
|
||||
Interview with David Bohm provided and conducted by F. David Peat along with John Briggs, first issued in Omni magazine, January 1987
|
||||
Archive of papers at Birkbeck College relating to David Bohm and David Bohm at the National Archives
|
||||
David Bohm at the Mathematics Genealogy Project
|
||||
1979 Audio Interview with David Bohm by Martin Sherwin at Voices of the Manhattan Project
|
||||
The Bohm Documentary by David Peat and Paul Howard (in production)
|
||||
The Best David Bohm Interview about "The Nature of Things" by David Suzuki 26 May 1979
|
||||
Oral History interview transcript with David Bohm on 8 May 1981, American Institute of Physics, Niels Bohr Library and Archives – interview conducted by Lillian Hoddeson in Edgware, London, England
|
||||
Oral History interview transcript with David Bohm on 6 June 1986, American Institute of Physics, Niels Bohr Library and Archives – Session I, interviews conducted by Maurice Wilkins
|
||||
Oral History interview transcript with David Bohm on 12 June 1986, American Institute of Physics, Niels Bohr Library and Archives – Session II
|
||||
Oral History interview transcript with David Bohm on 7 July 1986, American Institute of Physics, Niels Bohr Library and Archives – Session III
|
||||
Oral History interview transcript with David Bohm on 25 September 1986, American Institute of Physics, Niels Bohr Library and Archives – Session IV
|
||||
Oral History interview transcript with David Bohm on 3 October 1986, American Institute of Physics, Niels Bohr Library and Archives – Session V
|
||||
Oral History interview transcript with David Bohm on 22 December 1986, American Institute of Physics, Niels Bohr Library and Archives – Session VI
|
||||
Oral History interview transcript with David Bohm on 30 January 1987, American Institute of Physics, Niels Bohr Library and Archives – Session VII
|
||||
Oral History interview transcript with David Bohm on 7 February 1987, American Institute of Physics, Niels Bohr Library and Archives – Session VIII
|
||||
Oral History interview transcript with David Bohm on 27 February 1987, American Institute of Physics, Niels Bohr Library and Archives – Session IX
|
||||
Oral History interview transcript with David Bohm on 6 March 1987, American Institute of Physics, Niels Bohr Library and Archives – Session X
|
||||
Oral History interview transcript with David Bohm on 3 April 1987, American Institute of Physics, Niels Bohr Library and Archives – Session XI
|
||||
Oral History interview transcript with David Bohm on 16 April 1987, American Institute of Physics, Niels Bohr Library and Archives – Session XII
|
||||
Dialectical Materialism and Quantum Physics - The Unpublished 1957 Lectures of David Bohm in Israel
|
||||
30
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers-0.md
Normal file
30
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "David Chalmers"
|
||||
chunk: 1/3
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:06.849858+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
David John Chalmers (; born 20 April 1966) is an Australian philosopher and cognitive scientist, specializing in philosophy of mind and philosophy of language. He is a professor of philosophy and neural science at New York University (NYU), as well as co-director of NYU's Center for Mind, Brain and Consciousness (along with Ned Block). In 2006, he was elected a fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities. In 2013, he was elected as a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
|
||||
Chalmers is best known for formulating the hard problem of consciousness, and for popularizing the philosophical zombie thought experiment.
|
||||
Chalmers and David Bourget co-founded PhilPapers; a database of journal articles for philosophers.
|
||||
|
||||
== Early life and education ==
|
||||
David Chalmers was born in Sydney, New South Wales, and subsequently grew up in Adelaide, South Australia, where he attended Unley High School.
|
||||
As a child, he experienced synesthesia. He began coding and playing computer games at the age of 10 on a PDP-10 at a medical center. He also performed exceptionally in mathematics, and secured a bronze medal in the International Mathematical Olympiad. When Chalmers was 13, he read Douglas Hofstadter's 1979 book Gödel, Escher, Bach, which awakened an interest in philosophy.
|
||||
Chalmers received his undergraduate degree in pure mathematics from the University of Adelaide. After graduating, Chalmers spent six months reading philosophy books while hitchhiking across Europe, before continuing his studies at the University of Oxford, where he was a Rhodes Scholar but eventually withdrew from the course.
|
||||
In 1993, Chalmers received his PhD in philosophy and cognitive science from Indiana University Bloomington under Douglas Hofstadter, writing a doctoral thesis entitled Toward a Theory of Consciousness. He was a postdoctoral fellow in the Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology program directed by Andy Clark at Washington University in St. Louis from 1993 to 1995.
|
||||
|
||||
== Career ==
|
||||
|
||||
In 1994, Chalmers presented a lecture at the inaugural Toward a Science of Consciousness conference. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, this "lecture established Chalmers as a thinker to be reckoned with and goosed a nascent field into greater prominence." He went on to co-organize the conference (renamed "The Science of Consciousness") for some years with Stuart Hameroff, but stepped away when he felt it became too divergent from mainstream science. Chalmers is a founding member of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness and one of its past presidents.
|
||||
Having established his reputation, Chalmers received his first professorship at UC Santa Cruz, from August 1995 to December 1998. In 1996 he published the widely cited book The Conscious Mind. Chalmers was subsequently appointed Professor of Philosophy (1999–2004) and then Director of the Center for Consciousness Studies (2002–2004) at the University of Arizona. In 2004, Chalmers returned to Australia, encouraged by an ARC Federation Fellowship, becoming professor of philosophy and director of the Center for Consciousness at the Australian National University. Chalmers accepted a part-time professorship at the philosophy department of New York University in 2009, becoming a full-time professor in 2014.
|
||||
In 2013, Chalmers was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. He is an editor on topics in the philosophy of mind for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In May 2018, it was announced that he would serve on the jury for the Berggruen Prize.
|
||||
In 2023, Chalmers won a bet—made in 1998, for a case of wine—with neuroscientist Christof Koch that the neural underpinnings for consciousness would not be resolved by the year 2023, while Koch had bet that they would.
|
||||
|
||||
== Philosophical work ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Philosophy of mind ===
|
||||
24
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers-1.md
Normal file
24
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers-1.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "David Chalmers"
|
||||
chunk: 2/3
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:06.849858+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Chalmers is best known for formulating what he calls the "hard problem of consciousness," in both his 1995 paper "Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness" and his 1996 book The Conscious Mind. He makes a distinction between "easy" problems of consciousness, such as explaining object discrimination or verbal reports, and the single hard problem, which could be stated "why does the feeling which accompanies awareness of sensory information exist at all?" The essential difference between the (cognitive) easy problems and the (phenomenal) hard problem is that the former are at least theoretically answerable via the dominant strategy in the philosophy of mind: physicalism. Chalmers argues for an "explanatory gap" from the objective to the subjective, and criticizes physicalist explanations of mental experience, making him a dualist. Chalmers characterizes his view as "naturalistic dualism": naturalistic because he believes mental states supervene "naturally" on physical systems (such as brains); dualist because he believes mental states are ontologically distinct from and not reducible to physical systems. He has also characterized his view by more traditional formulations such as property dualism.
|
||||
In support of this, Chalmers is famous for his commitment to the logical (though, not natural) possibility of philosophical zombies. These zombies are complete physical duplicates of human beings, lacking only qualitative experience. Chalmers argues that since such zombies are conceivable to us, they must therefore be logically possible. Since they are logically possible, then qualia and sentience are not fully explained by physical properties alone; the facts about them are further facts. Instead, Chalmers argues that consciousness is a fundamental property ontologically autonomous of any known (or even possible) physical properties, and that there may be lawlike rules which he terms "psychophysical laws" that determine which physical systems are associated with which types of qualia. He further speculates that all information-bearing systems may be conscious, leading him to entertain the possibility of conscious thermostats and a qualified panpsychism he calls panprotopsychism. Chalmers maintains a formal agnosticism on the issue, even conceding that the viability of panpsychism places him at odds with the majority of his contemporaries. According to Chalmers, his arguments are similar to a line of thought that goes back to Leibniz's 1714 "mill" argument; the first substantial use of philosophical "zombie" terminology may be Robert Kirk's 1974 "Zombies vs. Materialists".
|
||||
After the publication of Chalmers's landmark paper, more than twenty papers in response were published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies. These papers (by Daniel Dennett, Colin McGinn, Francisco Varela, Francis Crick, and Roger Penrose, among others) were collected and published in the book Explaining Consciousness: The Hard Problem. John Searle critiqued Chalmers's views in The New York Review of Books.
|
||||
With Andy Clark, Chalmers has written "The Extended Mind", an article about the borders of the mind.
|
||||
|
||||
According to Chalmers, systems that have the same functional organization "at a fine enough grain" (that are "functionally isomorphic") will have "qualitatively identical conscious experiences". In 1995, he proposed the reductio ad absurdum "fading qualia" thought experiment. It involves progressively replacing each neuron of a brain with a functional equivalent, for example implemented on a silicon chip. Since each substitute neuron performs the same function as the original, the subject would not notice any change. But, Chalmers argues, if qualia (for example, the perceived color of objects) were to fade or disappear, the brain's holder could notice the difference, which would alter the information processing in the brain, leading to a contradiction. He concludes that such fading qualia are impossible in practice, and that after each neuron is replaced, the resulting functionally isomorphic robotic brain would be as conscious as the original biological one. In addition, Chalmers proposed a similar thought experiment, "dancing qualia", which concludes that a robotic brain that is functionally isomorphic to a biological one would not only be as conscious, but would also have the same conscious experiences (e.g., the same perception of color when seeing an object). In 2023, he analyzed whether large language models could be conscious, and suggested that they were probably not conscious, but could become serious candidates for consciousness within a decade.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Philosophy of language ===
|
||||
Chalmers has published works on the "theory of reference" concerning how words secure their referents. He, together with others such as Frank Jackson, played a major role in developing two-dimensional semantics.
|
||||
|
||||
==== Background ====
|
||||
Before Saul Kripke delivered his famous lecture series Naming and Necessity in 1970, the descriptivism advocated by Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell was the orthodoxy. Descriptivism suggests that a name is an abbreviation of a description, which is a set of properties. This name secures its reference by a process of properties fitting: whichever object fits the description most, is the referent of the name. Therefore, the description provides the sense of the name, and it is through this sense that the reference of the name is determined.
|
||||
However, as Kripke argued in Naming and Necessity, a name does not secure its reference via any process of description fitting. Rather, a name determines its reference via a historical-causal link tracing back to the process of naming. And thus, Kripke thinks that a name does not have a sense, or, at least, does not have a sense which is rich enough to play the reference-determining role. Moreover, a name, in Kripke's view, is a rigid designator, which refers to the same object in all possible worlds. Following this line of thought, Kripke suggests that any scientific identity statement such as "Water is H2O" is also a necessary statement, i.e. true in all possible worlds. Kripke thinks that this is a phenomenon that descriptivism cannot explain.
|
||||
And, as also proposed by Hilary Putnam and Kripke himself, Kripke's view on names can also be applied to the reference of natural kind terms. The kind of theory of reference that is advocated by Kripke and Putnam is called the direct reference theory.
|
||||
44
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers-2.md
Normal file
44
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers-2.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "David Chalmers"
|
||||
chunk: 3/3
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:06.849858+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
==== Two-dimensional semantics ====
|
||||
Chalmers disagrees with Kripke, and direct reference theorists in general. He thinks that there are two kinds of intension of a natural kind term, a stance called two-dimensionalism. For example, the statement "Water is H2O" expresses two distinct propositions, often referred to as a primary intension and a secondary intension, which together form its meaning.
|
||||
The primary intension of a word or sentence is its sense, i.e., is the idea or method by which we find its referent. The primary intension of "water" might be a description, such as "the substance with water-like properties". The entity identified by this intension could vary in different hypothetical worlds. In the twin Earth thought experiment, for example, inhabitants might use "water" to mean their equivalent of water, even if its chemical composition is not H2O. Thus, for that world, "water" does not refer to H2O.
|
||||
The secondary intension of "water" is whatever "water" refers to in this world. When considered according to its secondary intension, water means H2O in every world. Through this concept, Chalmers provides a way to explain how reference is determined by distinguishing between epistemic possibilities (primary intension) and metaphysical necessities (secondary intension), ensuring that the referent (H2O) is uniquely identified across all metaphysically possible worlds.
|
||||
|
||||
==== Philosophy of verbal disputes ====
|
||||
In some more recent work, Chalmers has concentrated on verbal disputes. He argues that a dispute is best characterized as "verbal" when it concerns some sentence S which contains a term T such that (i) the parties to the dispute disagree over the meaning of T, and (ii) the dispute arises solely because of this disagreement. In the same work, Chalmers proposes certain procedures for the resolution of verbal disputes. One of these he calls the "elimination method", which involves eliminating the contentious term and observing whether any dispute remains.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Technology and virtual reality ===
|
||||
Chalmers addressed the issue of virtual and non-virtual worlds in his 2022 book Reality+. While Chalmers recognises that virtual reality is not the same as non-virtual reality, he does not consider virtual reality to be an illusion, but rather a "genuine reality" in its own right. Chalmers sees virtual reality as potentially offering as meaningful a life as non-virtual reality, and argues that we could already be inhabitants of a simulation without knowing it.
|
||||
Chalmers proposes that computers are forming a form of "exo-cortex", where a part of human cognition is 'outsourced' to corporations such as Apple and Google.
|
||||
Chalmers was featured in the 2012 documentary film entitled The Singularity by filmmaker Doug Wolens, which focuses on the theory proposed by techno-futurist Ray Kurzweil, of that "point in time when computer intelligence exceeds human intelligence." He was a featured philosopher in the 2020 Daily Nous series on GPT-3, which he described as "one of the most interesting and important AI systems ever produced."
|
||||
|
||||
== Personal life ==
|
||||
Regarding religion, Chalmers said in 2011: "I have no religious views myself and no spiritual views, except watered-down humanistic spiritual views. And consciousness is just a fact of life. It's a natural fact of life".
|
||||
As of 2012 Chalmers was the lead singer of the Zombie Blues band, which performed at the music festival Qualia Fest in 2012 in New York.
|
||||
|
||||
== Bibliography ==
|
||||
The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (1996). Oxford University Press. hardcover: ISBN 0-19-511789-1, paperback: ISBN 0-19-510553-2
|
||||
Toward a Science of Consciousness III: The Third Tucson Discussions and Debates (1999). Stuart R. Hameroff, Alfred W. Kaszniak and David J. Chalmers (Editors). The MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-58181-7
|
||||
Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings (2002). (Editor). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-514581-X or ISBN 0-19-514580-1
|
||||
The Character of Consciousness (2010). Oxford University Press. hardcover: ISBN 0-19-531110-8, paperback: ISBN 0-19-531111-6
|
||||
Constructing the World (2012). Oxford University Press. hardcover: ISBN 978-0-19-960857-7, paperback: ISBN 978-0199608584
|
||||
Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy (2022). W. W. Norton & Company. Hardcover: ISBN 978-0-393-63580-5
|
||||
|
||||
== Notes ==
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
|
||||
Official website
|
||||
An in-depth autobiographical interview with David Chalmers
|
||||
"The Singularity" a documentary film featuring Chalmers
|
||||
The Moscow Center for Consciousness Studies video interview with David Chalmers
|
||||
David Chalmers at TED
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Dictionary of Scientific Biography"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_Scientific_Biography"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:41.896452+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Dictionary of Scientific Biography is a scholarly reference work that was published from 1970 through 1980 by publisher Charles Scribner's Sons, with main editor the science historian Charles Gillispie, from Princeton University. It consisted of sixteen volumes. It is supplemented by the New Dictionary of Scientific Biography (2007). Both these publications are included in a later electronic book, called the Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Dictionary of Scientific Biography ==
|
||||
The Dictionary of Scientific Biography is a scholarly English-language reference work consisting of biographies of scientists from antiquity to modern times but excluding scientists who were alive when the Dictionary was first published. It includes scientists who worked in the areas of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and earth sciences. The work is notable for being one of the most substantial reference works in the field of history of science, containing extensive biographies on hundreds of figures. It gives information about both the personal biography and in considerable detail about the scientific contributions. Engineers, physicians, social scientists and philosophers only appeared "when their work was intrinsically related to the sciences of nature or to mathematics." Though the Dictionary has worldwide coverage, the editors write that it focuses most on Western scientists, due to the limited availability of scholarship about Asian, Indian and Islamic historical scientists at the time.
|
||||
The articles in the Dictionary are typically 1–5 pages and are written by eminent historians of science. All articles list a selection of the original works of the subject, as well as a comprehensive list of the secondary literature about them (which may be in any language), including early works as well as more contemporary ones.
|
||||
The first volume of the Dictionary was first put out in 1970, under the general editorship of Charles Coulston Gillispie. Charles Scribner Jr., the head of Charles Scribner's Sons, initiated the discussions with Gillispie and took a special interest in it. The set was completed in 1980. The Dictionary was published in 16 volumes under the auspices of the American Council of Learned Societies by Charles Scribner's Sons with support from the National Science Foundation. Volume 15 is Supplement I; it contains additional biographies as well as topical essays on non-Western scientific traditions. Volume 16 is the general index. A 2-volume Supplement II with additional biographies was published in 1990.
|
||||
In 1981, after the 16-volume set was complete, Scribner's published a one-volume abridgment, the Concise Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Its second edition was published in 2001 and includes content from the 1990 Supplement II.
|
||||
In 1981, the American Library Association awarded the Dartmouth Medal to the Dictionary as a reference work of outstanding quality and significance.
|
||||
In 1975, three chapters from the Dictionary of Scientific Biography were expanded and published individually in Scribner's DSB Editions series:
|
||||
|
||||
I. Bernard Cohen, Benjamin Franklin: Scientist and Statesman. ISBN 0-684-14251-1
|
||||
Francis Everitt, James Clerk Maxwell: Physicist and Natural Philosopher. ISBN 0-684-14253-8
|
||||
Henry Guerlac, Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier: Chemist and Revolutionary. ISBN 0-684-14222-8
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== New Dictionary of Scientific Biography ==
|
||||
The New Dictionary of Scientific Biography, edited by Noretta Koertge, was published by Scribner's in December 2007 with 775 entries. Nearly 500 of these are new articles about scientists who died after 1980 and thus were not included in the original Dictionary; 75 articles are on figures from earlier periods not included in the original Dictionary of Scientific Biography, including a substantial number of female and third-world scientific figures.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Electronic version ==
|
||||
In 2007, Charles Scribner's Sons published the Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography as an e-book. It includes the complete text of both print editions, with a unified index and other finding aids. The e-book version is available as part of the Gale Virtual Reference Library.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Critical reception ==
|
||||
The DSB has been widely praised as a monumental undertaking. One reviewer of another work wrote that "The Dictionary of Scientific Biography (DSB) has become the standard against which to measure all multi-volume biographical works in history of science." A few have noted major omissions as being a problem. Additionally, two major historians of science were omitted among the contributors, Joseph Needham and Otto Neugebauer. According to Donald Fleming, the worst account was that of J.D. Bernal by C.P. Snow, while Joseph Needham found it the most brilliant entry. According to Fernando Q. Gouvêa, the 2008 Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography, despite some significant problems, "remains an essential resource for those interested in the lives of scientists."
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Editions ==
|
||||
Gillispie, Charles C., editor in chief. Dictionary of Scientific Biography. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1970–1980. 16 vols. ISBN 0-684-10114-9. Supplement II, edited by Frederic Lawrence Holmes, 2 vols., 1990. ISBN 978-0-684-16962-0 OCLC 89822 (set).
|
||||
Concise Dictionary of Scientific Biography. American Council of Learned Societies. New York Scribner, 1981. ISBN 0-684-16650-X.
|
||||
Koertge, Noretta, editor in chief. New Dictionary of Scientific Biography. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2007. 8 vols. ISBN 978-0-684-31320-7.
|
||||
Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2007 [e-book]. ISBN 978-0-684-31559-1.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Reviews ==
|
||||
Barzun, J. (1970-11-06). "Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Charles Coulston Gillispie, Ed. Vol. 1, Pierre Abailard-L. S. Berg; xiv, 626 pp., illus. Vol. 2, Hans Berger-Christoph Buys Ballot; xii, 628 pp. Scribner, New York, 1970. $35 a volume". Science. 170 (3958). American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): 615–616. doi:10.1126/science.170.3958.615. ISSN 0036-8075. JSTOR 1731508.
|
||||
Krupp, E. C. (1985). "Prisoner in Disguise – A Review of: Dictionary of Scientific Biography Volume XV, Supplement I". Archaeoastronomy. 8: 142. Bibcode:1985Arch....8..142K.
|
||||
Brush, Stephen G. (1972). Gillispie, Charles Coulston (ed.). "BOOK AND FILM REVIEWS: A Facinating [sic] Reference: Dictionary of Scientific Biography". The Physics Teacher. 10 (3). American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT): 158. doi:10.1119/1.2352143. ISSN 0031-921X.
|
||||
I. Bernard Cohen (1970). "Dictionary of Scientific Biography". The New York Times.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Some sample DSB entries, digitized by Cultural Heritage Language Technologies and the Linda Hall Library
|
||||
Introduction to the New DSB from Indiana University
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Earth System Science Partnership"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_System_Science_Partnership"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:30.110860+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP) was an international interdisciplinary partnership established to promote integrated study of the Earth system and the interactions between environmental and human processes. The partnership brought together four major global change programmes: DIVERSITAS, the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), and the International Human Dimensions Programme (IHDP).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Purpose and scope ==
|
||||
ESSP aimed to transcend disciplinary boundaries by integrating natural sciences and social sciences to improve understanding and prediction of global and regional environmental change, and to inform sustainable responses. Its strategy emphasised systems-level observations, interdisciplinary modelling, regional studies, and engagement with stakeholders and policy communities.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Joint projects and activities ==
|
||||
ESSP coordinated a small set of interdisciplinary “Joint Projects” addressing societally relevant themes: carbon (through the Global Carbon Project), food systems (GECAFS), water systems (GWSP), and global environmental change and human health (GEC&HH). These projects combined existing scientific networks, regional studies (for example the Monsoon Asia Integrated Regional Study, MAIRS), and capacity-building activities to link local-regional research with global synthesis.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Governance and review ==
|
||||
ESSP operated as a partnership among the sponsoring programmes with coordination provided through a scientific committee and Secretariat functions, and it was periodically reviewed by ICSU and partner funding bodies to assess progress, governance and policy relevance.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Transition and legacy ==
|
||||
Following an independent review and planning processes, ESSP underwent a phased transition into the initiative known as Future Earth which formally began to absorb and reconfigure ESSP activities from 2012 onwards; this shift sought a broader sustainability focus and new modes of co-design between science and society. ESSP’s principal legacy is the operational model of interdisciplinary joint projects and regional synthesis, which informed successor efforts and many active research networks.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
Earth system science
|
||||
International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme
|
||||
Systems geology
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Earth System Science Partnership begins transition to Future Earth
|
||||
Future Earth Initiative Archived 2016-12-02 at the Wayback Machine
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_scientific_knowledge"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T07:11:19.132749+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:43.116598+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
40
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Papers_Project-0.md
Normal file
40
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Papers_Project-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Einstein Papers Project"
|
||||
chunk: 1/3
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Papers_Project"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:45.446220+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Einstein Papers Project (EPP) produces the historical edition of the writings and correspondence of Albert Einstein. The EPP collects, transcribes, translates, annotates, and publishes materials from Einstein's literary estate and a multitude of other repositories, which hold Einstein-related historical sources. The staff of the project is an international collaborative group of scholars, editors, researchers, and administrators working on the ongoing authoritative edition The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein (CPAE).
|
||||
|
||||
== Significance ==
|
||||
According to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
|
||||
|
||||
"The Albert Einstein Archives is an extraordinary cultural asset of universal importance for humanity and of national importance for Israel and the Jewish people. Representing the intellectual and personal record of a creative genius whose thinking profoundly changed our perception of the universe, it is of inestimable value. Einstein did not wish that any physical monument or memorial be erected in his name. The preservation of his papers, which most authentically reflect his ideas and person, affords a far more fitting means of maintaining his legacy."
|
||||
|
||||
== Foundation ==
|
||||
The EPP was established by Princeton University Press (PUP) in 1977 at the Institute for Advanced Study. The founding editor of the project was professor of physics John Stachel. In 1984, the project moved from Princeton to Stachel's home institution, Boston University. The first volume of the CPAE was published by PUP in 1987. The following year, historian of science Martin J. Klein of Yale University was appointed senior editor of the project. Volumes 1-6 and 8 of the series were completed during the project's time in Boston.
|
||||
In 2000, professor of history Diana Kormos-Buchwald was appointed general editor and director of the EPP and established offices for the project at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) In Pasadena, California. Volumes 7 and 9-16 of the CPAE have been completed since the project's move to Caltech. (Volume 11 in the series is a comprehensive index and bibliography to Volumes 1–10).
|
||||
The CPAE volumes include Einstein's books, his published and unpublished scientific and non-scientific articles, his lecture and research notebooks, travel diaries, book reviews, appeals, and reliable records of his lectures, speeches, interviews with the press, and other oral statements. The volumes also include his professional, personal, and political correspondence.
|
||||
Each annotated volume, referred to as the documentary edition, presents full text documents in their original language, primarily German. Introductions, endnotes, texts selected for inclusion as abstracts, etc. are in English. Volume 16 of the CPAE is the most recent publication in the series; the first sixteen volumes cover Einstein's life up to May 1929. PUP publishes the series. With each documentary edition, the EPP simultaneously publishes a companion English translation volume.
|
||||
The EPP collaborates with the Albert Einstein Archives at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In his last will and testament, Einstein bequeathed his literary estate and his personal papers to the Hebrew University. The project and the archives maintain and update a shared archival database of 90,000+ records. Support for the project comes from PUP, endowments from individuals and universities, the National Science Foundation, and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
|
||||
|
||||
Originally free, the project will now be under some pricing model.
|
||||
|
||||
== 2014–2025: The Digital Einstein Papers ==
|
||||
In late 2014, the EPP and PUP announced the launch of The Digital Einstein papers project, a free (open-access) site for The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein,
|
||||
According to EPP Chairman Buchwald, the site would,
|
||||
|
||||
"... introduce current and future generations to important ideas and moments in history, ... ' It is exciting to think that thanks to the careful application of new technology, this work will now reach a much broader audience and stand as the authoritative digital source for Einstein’s written legacy. ' ”
|
||||
The site presented the complete contents of volumes 1–16 and would add subsequent volumes in the series roughly two years after original book publication. The project volumes were reproduced online as fully searchable PDFs of the printed volumes, with all documents and endnotes linked to provide seamless transitions between the original language documentary edition and English translations. Subsequent volumes would be added to the website approximately eighteen months after their release in print. It was projected that there would be thirty volumes in the series. Eventually, the Digital Einstein Papers website would provide access to all of Einstein's writings and correspondence accompanied by scholarly annotation and apparatus.
|
||||
The launch of The Digital Einstein Papers attracted broad attention in the press, with coverage ranging from The New York Times to The Wall Street Journal.
|
||||
The Digital Einstein project was supported by the Harold W. McGraw, Jr. endowment, the California Institute of Technology, the National Science Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Arcadia Fund.
|
||||
In 2025, a line of text along the top of important pages on the site announced that access to the free "Digital Einstein" site would end on 15 August 2025.
|
||||
|
||||
== 2026–present: Einstein Portal ==
|
||||
The replacement, currently referred to variously as the Einstein Portal and the Einstein database will be a new site developed with Paradigm Publishing Services, based on De Gruyter Brill database technology, and with improved LATEX search features.
|
||||
The new website is expected to appear at around "the back end of 2026" and will be paywalled, with organisations invited to apply for a custom price quote for giving their members access. It will have no open-access content, despite the fact that (since Einstein died in 1955), many important Einstein texts might be expected to be in the public domain by 2026 under the common "Life plus 70 years" copyright rule.
|
||||
Initially, the site will allow access to the same sixteen volumes as the defunct "Digital Einstein" site, and is still planned to eventually be expanded to 30 volumes. Due to the amount of additional third-party material now amassed by the project, completion of all volumes up to 1955 is currently anticipated to take "still several decades".
|
||||
109
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Papers_Project-1.md
Normal file
109
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Papers_Project-1.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Einstein Papers Project"
|
||||
chunk: 2/3
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Papers_Project"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:45.446220+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
== Volumes ==
|
||||
The Early Years: 1879-1902 is the first volume in the series.
|
||||
The Swiss Years: 1900-1914 and The Berlin Years: 1914-1930 followed through volume 17 in two parallel and extensively cross-referenced branches:
|
||||
Writings: published and previously unpublished articles, lecture notes, research notes, accounts of his lectures, speeches, interviews, book reviews, etc.
|
||||
Correspondence: letters, travel diaries, calendars, documents about Einstein by third parties, etc.
|
||||
|
||||
== The early years: 1879–1902 ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Volume 1 - Collected Papers 1879-1902 ===
|
||||
Includes many previously unpublished documents, e.g. class notes for Heinrich Friedrich Weber's lectures on thermodynamics and electromagnetism during Einstein's second year at ETH Zurich, etc.
|
||||
|
||||
The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 1, The Early Years: 1879-1902.
|
||||
Editors: John Stachel et al. ISBN 0-691-08407-6, 1987.
|
||||
|
||||
== The Swiss years: 1900–1914 ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Volume 2 - Writings 1900-1909 ===
|
||||
Includes Einstein's first (1900) published paper after his graduation from ETH Zurich, the Annus Mirabilis Papers, text of his invited lecture after his first academic appointment to the University of Zurich, etc.
|
||||
|
||||
The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 2, The Swiss Years: Writings, 1900-1909.
|
||||
Editors: John Stachel et al. ISBN 0-691-08526-9, 1989.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Volume 3 - Writings 1909-1911 ===
|
||||
Includes Einstein's report to the first Solvay Conference, his appointment to the Charles University in Prague, his paper calculating gravitational bending of light, previously unpublished lecture notes, etc.
|
||||
|
||||
The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 3, The Swiss Years: Writings, 1909-1911.
|
||||
Editors: Martin J. Klein et al. ISBN 0-691-08772-5, 1993.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Volume 4 - Writings 1912-1914 ===
|
||||
Includes a previously unpublished manuscript on relativity and electrodynamics, a notebook documenting his preparation for his first joint paper (1913, with Marcel Grossmann), previously unknown calculations with Michele Besso on the motion of the perihelion of Mercury, etc.
|
||||
|
||||
The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 4, The Swiss Years: Writings, 1912-1914.
|
||||
Editors: Martin J. Klein et al. ISBN 0-691-03705-1, 1995.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Volume 5 - Correspondence 1902-1914 ===
|
||||
Includes more than five hundred previously unpublished letters to and from Einstein in his early adulthood, from his first employment at the Swiss patent office in 1902 through his appointment to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in 1914. Correspondents included Max von Laue, Paul Ehrenfest, Alfred Kleiner, Fritz Haber, Walther Nernst, etc.
|
||||
|
||||
The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 5, The Swiss Years: Correspondence, 1902-1914.
|
||||
Editors: Martin J. Klein et al. ISBN 0-691-03322-6, 1993.
|
||||
|
||||
== The Berlin years: 1914–1930 ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Volume 6 - Writings 1914-1917 ===
|
||||
Includes papers describing Einstein's only experimental physics investigation, a study of André-Marie Ampère's molecular current theory of electromagnetism with Wander Johannes de Haas; etc.
|
||||
|
||||
The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 6, The Berlin Years: Writings, 1914-1917.
|
||||
Editors: A. J. Kox et al. ISBN 0-691-01086-2, 1996.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Volume 7 - Writings 1918-1921 ===
|
||||
The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 7, The Berlin Years: Writings, 1918-1921.
|
||||
Editors: Michel Janssen et al. ISBN 0-691-05717-6, 2002.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Volume 8 - Correspondence 1914-1918 ===
|
||||
The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 8, The Berlin Years: Correspondence, 1914-1918.
|
||||
Editors: R. Schulmann et al. In two volumes. ISBN 0-691-04849-5, 1997.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Volume 9 - Correspondence January 1919-April 1920 ===
|
||||
The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 9, The Berlin Years: Correspondence, January 1919 - April 1920.
|
||||
Editors: Diana Kormos-Buchwald et al. ISBN 0-691-12088-9, 2004.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Volume 10 - Correspondence May–December 1920, Supplementary Correspondence 1909-1920 ===
|
||||
The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 10, The Berlin Years: Correspondence, May–December 1920, and Supplementary Correspondence, 1909-1920.
|
||||
Editors: Diana Kormos-Buchwald et al. ISBN 0-691-12825-1, 2006.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Volume 11 - Cumulative Index, Bibliography, List of Correspondence, Chronology, and Errata to Volumes 1 - 10 ===
|
||||
The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 11, Cumulative Index, Bibliography, List of Correspondence, Chronology, and Errata to Volumes 1 - 10.
|
||||
Editors: Diana Kormos-Buchwald et al. ISBN 978-0-691-14187-9, 2009.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Volume 12 - The Berlin Years: Correspondence, January - December 1921 ===
|
||||
The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 12, The Berlin Years: Correspondence, January - December 1921.
|
||||
Editors: Diana Kormos-Buchwald et al. ISBN 9780691141909, 2009.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Volume 13 - The Berlin Years: Writings & Correspondence, January 1922 - March 1923 ===
|
||||
The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 13, The Berlin Years: Writings & Correspondence, January 1922 - March 1923.
|
||||
Editors: Diana Kormos-Buchwald et al. ISBN 9780691156743, 2012.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Volume 14 - The Berlin Years: Writings & Correspondence, April 1923 - May 1925 ===
|
||||
The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 14, The Berlin Years: Writings & Correspondence, April 1923 - May 1925.
|
||||
Editors: Diana Kormos-Buchwald et al. ISBN 978-0691164106, 2015.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Volume 15 - The Berlin Years: Writings & Correspondence, June 1925 - May 1927 ===
|
||||
The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 15, The Berlin Years: Writings & Correspondence, June 1925 - May 1927.
|
||||
Editors: Diana Kormos-Buchwald et al. ISBN 978-0691178813, 2018.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Volume 16 - The Berlin Years: Writings & Correspondence, June 1927 - May 1929 ===
|
||||
The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 16, The Berlin Years: Writings & Correspondence, June 1927 - May 1929.
|
||||
Editors: Diana Kormos-Buchwald et al. ISBN 9780691216812, 2021.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Volume 17 - The Berlin Years: Writings & Correspondence, June 1929 - November 1930 ===
|
||||
Editors: Diana Kormos-Buchwald. ISBN 9780691246178, 2024.
|
||||
|
||||
== Trustees ==
|
||||
The trustees of Einstein's literary estate were:
|
||||
|
||||
Otto Nathan: executor and co-trustee, professor of economics, author and friend.
|
||||
Helen Dukas: co-trustee, Einstein's secretary for nearly thirty years.
|
||||
|
||||
== Editors ==
|
||||
The editors of The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein were:
|
||||
61
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Papers_Project-2.md
Normal file
61
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Papers_Project-2.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Einstein Papers Project"
|
||||
chunk: 3/3
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Papers_Project"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:45.446220+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
John Stachel: First editor, volumes 1, 2
|
||||
Martin J. Klein: Editor, volumes 3, 4, 5, 6
|
||||
Robert Schulmann: Editor, volumes 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; associate editor, volumes 1, 2
|
||||
A. J. Kox: Editor, volumes 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 15, 16; associate editor, volumes 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14
|
||||
Tilman Sauer: Editor, volumes 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16; contributing editor, volume 4
|
||||
Jürgen Renn: Editor, volumes 3, 4; assistant editor, volumes 1, 2
|
||||
Michel Janssen: Editor, volumes 7, 8
|
||||
Christoph Lehner: Editor, volume 7
|
||||
Virginia Iris Holmes: Editor, volumes 10, 12
|
||||
Osik Moses: Editor, volumes 11, 14; associate editor, volumes 12, 13
|
||||
Dennis Lehmkuhl: Editor, volumes 15, 16; associate editor, volumes 13, 14
|
||||
Issachar Unna, associate editor, volumes 13, 14, 15
|
||||
József Illy: Editor, volumes 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16; contributing editor, volumes 4, 6
|
||||
Daniel J. Kennefick: Editor, volumes 9, 16; associate editor, volumes 7, 10, 12, 13, 15
|
||||
Current editors of The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein are:
|
||||
|
||||
Diana Kormos-Buchwald: director and general editor, Robert M. Abbey Professor of History at Caltech. A historian of modern physical science.
|
||||
Ze'ev Rosenkranz: senior editor and assistant director, past curator of the Albert Einstein Archives, Jerusalem.
|
||||
Emily de Araújo: assistant editor and public relations administrator.
|
||||
Rudy Hirschmann: IT manager.
|
||||
Jennifer Nollar James: associate editor.
|
||||
|
||||
== Executive committee ==
|
||||
The current executive committee members of the project are:
|
||||
|
||||
Yemima Ben Menahem: Professor, Department of Philosophy (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
|
||||
Michael Gordin: Rosengarten Professor of Modern and Contemporary History and Director, Society of Fellows in the Liberal Arts (Princeton University)
|
||||
John L. Heilbron: Visiting Associate in History, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences (California Institute of Technology)
|
||||
Daniel J. Kevles: Professor Emeritus, Department of History (Yale University)
|
||||
John D. Norton: Professor, Department of History and Philosophy of Science (University of Pittsburgh)
|
||||
Barbara Oberg: Professor, Department of History (Princeton University)
|
||||
Moshe Sluhovsky: Professor and chair, Department of History, Vigevani Chair in European Studies (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
|
||||
Joseph H. Taylor: Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics (Princeton University)
|
||||
Kip S. Thorne: Professor Emeritus, Division of Physics, Mathematics and Astronomy (California Institute of Technology)
|
||||
Sean Wilentz: Professor, Department of History (Princeton University)
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
Albert Einstein Archives
|
||||
List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
The Einstein Papers Project at the California Institute of Technology.
|
||||
Forthcoming Einstein Portal co-managed by Einstein Papers Project with Princeton University and De Gruyter.
|
||||
The Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists in Post-War America (Project of the Oregon State University)
|
||||
Overbye, Dennis (20 May 2003). "Now on the Web, a Peek Into Einstein's Thoughts". The New York Times.
|
||||
Kozlowski, Carl (16 July 2009). "Dear Albert: Caltech's Einstein Papers Project unveils another volume filled with the great man's private correspondence". Pasadena Weekly. Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 17 January 2011.
|
||||
Overbye, Dennis (4 December 2014). "Thousands of Einstein Documents Are Now a Click Away". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 December 2014.
|
||||
Hirschmann, Rudolf (September 2011) "After the Prize: Indexing at the Einstein Papers Project". The Indexer, Volume 29, No. 3.
|
||||
Dietrich, Jane S. (2000) "Einstein Redux". Engineering and Science, No. 3. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia_of_the_History_of_Science,_Technology,_and_Medicine_in_Non-Western_Cultures"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T08:28:50.162386+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:56.659181+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
35
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endophysics-0.md
Normal file
35
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endophysics-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Endophysics"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endophysics"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:09.182403+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The term endophysics (lit. “physics from within”) was coined by the American physicist David Finkelstein in a letter to the German biochemist Otto E. Rössler, who originally came up with the concept. It refers to the study of how observations are affected and limited by the observer being within the universe. This is in contrast with "exophysics," which assumes a system observed from the “outside”.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
Physics
|
||||
Internal measurement (This notion is very similar to endophysics.)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
R. J. Boskovich, De spacio et tempore, ut a nobis cognoscuntur, partial English translation in: J. M. Child (Ed.), A Theory of Natural Philosophy, Open Court (1922) and MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1966, pp. 203–205.
|
||||
T. Toffoli, The role of the observer in uniform systems, in: G. J. Klir (Ed.), Applied General Systems Research, Recent Developments and Trends, Plenum Press, New York, London, 1978, pp. 395–400.
|
||||
K. Svozil, Connections between deviations from Lorentz transformation and relativistic energy-momentum relation, Europhysics Letters 2 (1986) 83–85.
|
||||
O. E. Rössler, Endophysics, in: J. L. Casti, A. Karlquist (Eds.), Real Brains, Artificial Minds, North-Holland, New York, 1987, p. 25.
|
||||
O. E. Rössler, Endophysics. Die Welt des inneren Beobachters, Merwe Verlag, Berlin, 1992, with a foreword by Peter Weibel.
|
||||
K. Svozil, Extrinsic-intrinsic concept and complementarity, in: H. Atmanspacker, G. J. Dalenoort (Eds.), Inside versus Outside, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1994, pp. 273–288.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Further reading ==
|
||||
Saniga, Metod; Buccheri, Rosolino; Elitzur, Avshalom C. (3 October 2005). Endophysics, Time, Quantum And The Subjective - Proceedings Of The Zif Interdisciplinary Research Workshop (With Cd-rom). World Scientific. ISBN 978-981-4479-29-5. Retrieved 16 May 2024.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Karl Svozil (2005). Computational universes. doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2004.11.055
|
||||
Interview with O. E. Rössler (in German) Vom Chaos, der Virtuellen Realität und der Endophysik
|
||||
45
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_Letters-0.md
Normal file
45
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_Letters-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Epistemological Letters"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_Letters"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:10.373743+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Epistemological Letters (French: Lettres Épistémologiques) was a hand-typed, mimeographed "underground" newsletter about quantum physics that was distributed to a private mailing list, described by the physicist and Nobel laureate John Clauser as a "quantum subculture", between 1973 and 1984.
|
||||
Distributed by a Swiss foundation, the newsletter was created because mainstream academic journals were reluctant to publish articles about the philosophy of quantum mechanics, especially anything that implied support for ideas such as action at a distance. Thirty-six or thirty-seven issues of Epistemological Letters appeared, each between four and eighty-nine pages long. Several well-known scientists published their work there, including the physicist John Bell, the originator of Bell's theorem. According to John Clauser, much of the early work on Bell's theorem was published only in Epistemological Letters.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Interpretations of quantum physics ==
|
||||
|
||||
According to the Irish physicist Andrew Whitaker, a powerful group of physicists centred on Niels Bohr, Wolfgang Pauli and Werner Heisenberg made clear that "there was no place in physics – no jobs in physics! – for anybody who dared to question the Copenhagen interpretation" (Bohr's interpretation) of quantum theory. John Clauser writes that any inquiry into the "wonders and peculiarities" of quantum mechanics and quantum entanglement that went outside the "party line" was prohibited, in what he argues amounted to an "evangelical crusade". Samuel Goudsmit, editor of the prestigious Physical Review and Physical Review Letters until he retired in 1974, imposed a formal ban on the philosophical debate, issuing instructions to referees that they should feel free to reject material that even hinted at it.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Alternative publications ==
|
||||
Articles questioning the mainstream position were therefore distributed in alternative publications, and Epistemological Letters became one of the main conduits. The newsletter was sent out by the
|
||||
L'Institut de la Méthode of the Association Ferdinand Gonseth, which had been established in honour of the philosopher Ferdinand Gonseth. The newsletter described itself as "an open and informal journal allowing confrontation and ripening of ideas before publishing in some adequate journal." According to Clauser, it announced that the usual stigma against discussing certain ideas, such as hidden-variable theories, was to be absent. The newsletter's editors included Abner Shimony.
|
||||
Several eminent physicists published their material in Epistemological Letters, including John Bell, the originator of Bell's theorem. Clauser writes that much of the early work on Bell's theorem was published only in Epistemological Letters. Bell's paper, "The Theory of Local Beables" (beable, as opposed to observable, referring to something that exists independently of any observer), appeared there in March 1976. Abner Shimony, John Clauser and Michael Horne published responses to it, also in the Letters. Henry Stapp was another prominent physicist who wrote for the Letters. H. Dieter Zeh published a paper in the Letters on the many-minds interpretation of quantum mechanics in 1981.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Digitization of the Epistemological Letters ==
|
||||
Don Howard, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, was a Ph.D. student of Abner Shimony, one of the editors of the newsletter; as such, he had an almost complete set. In collaboration with Sebastian Murgueitio Ramirez (then his graduate student, now assistant professor of philosophy at Purdue University), the set was completed and digitized in 2018–2019, in order to make this very rare document available to the community of historians and philosophers of physics. The entire set is available to the public at the Epistemological Letters digital archive, and the original newsletter is in Special Collections at the University Library.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
Fundamental Fysiks Group
|
||||
Physics Physique Физика
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Further reading ==
|
||||
Friere, Olival (2003). "A Story Without an Ending: The Quantum Physics Controversy 1950–1970", Science & Education, 12, pp. 573–586.
|
||||
Gusterson, Hugh (18 August 2011). "Physics: Quantum outsiders", Nature, 476, pp. 278–279.
|
||||
"Epistemological Letters", digital archive at the University of Notre Dame.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Index to the Letters at Information Philosopher
|
||||
95
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ervin_László-0.md
Normal file
95
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ervin_László-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Ervin László"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ervin_László"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:17.472647+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Ervin László (Hungarian: [ˈɛrvin ˈlaːsloː]; born 12 June 1932) is an American philosopher of science, systems theorist, integral theorist, originally a classical pianist. He is an advocate of the theory of quantum consciousness.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Early life, family and education ==
|
||||
|
||||
László was born in Budapest, Hungary. His father was a shoe manufacturer, and his mother played the piano.
|
||||
László started playing the piano when he was five years old. His first piano concert was with the Budapest Symphony Orchestra when he was nine years old.
|
||||
After World War II, László relocated to the US.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Career ==
|
||||
László is a visiting faculty member at the Graduate Institute Bethany. He has published about 75 books and over 400 papers, and is editor of World Futures: The Journal of General Evolution.
|
||||
László participated in the Stock Exchange of Visions project in 2006. In 2010, he was elected an external member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
|
||||
In Hungary, the minister of environment appointed Laszlo as one of the leaders of the ministry's campaign concerning global warming.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Awards and honors ==
|
||||
In 2002, László received an honorary doctorate from the University of Pécs.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Personal life ==
|
||||
László married Carita Jägerhorn af Spurila 16 November 1956. One of their two sons is Alexander Laszlo.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Work ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Systems theory ===
|
||||
László became a leading exponent of Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s general systems theory. László viewed systems theory not only as scientifically important; he also saw in it the potential to establish an objective basis for humanist values, deriving from a consideration of a natural systems hierarchy and its evolution. In his opinion, “The ethics and natural philosophy of this new world view can help explicate and justify an emerging supranational social ethos: ‘reverence for natural systems’.”
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== General Evolutionary Research Group ===
|
||||
In 1984, László was co-founder with Béla H. Bánáthy, Riane Eisler, John Corliss, Francisco Varela, Vilmos Csanyi, Gyorgy Kampis, David Loye, Jonathan Schull and Eric Chaisson of the initially secret General Evolutionary Research Group. Meeting behind the Iron Curtain, the group of scientists and thinkers from a variety of disciplines met in secret. Their goal was to explore whether it might be possible to use the chaos theory to identify a new general theory of evolution that might serve as a path to a better world.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Club of Budapest ===
|
||||
In 1993, in response to his experience with the Club of Rome, he founded the Club of Budapest to, in his words, "centre attention on the evolution of human values and consciousness as the crucial factors in changing course — from a race towards degradation, polarization and disaster to a rethinking of values and priorities so as to navigate today's transformation in the direction of humanism, ethics and global sustainability".
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Akashic field theory ===
|
||||
László's 2004 book, Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything posits a field of information as the substance of the cosmos. Using the Sanskrit and Vedic term for "space", Akasha, he calls this information field the "Akashic field" or "A-field". He posits that the "quantum vacuum" (see Vacuum state) is the fundamental energy and information-carrying field that informs not just the current universe, but all universes past and present (collectively, the Akashic records or "Metaverse").
|
||||
László believes that such an informational field can explain why our universe appears to be fine-tuned so as to form galaxies and conscious lifeforms; and why evolution is an informed, not random, process. He believes that the hypothesis solves several problems that emerge from quantum physics, especially nonlocality and quantum entanglement.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== The Immortal Mind ===
|
||||
László became interested in the consciousness theories of Anthony Peake, (who in turn was an admirer of László’s work on the Akashic Field). Peake, whose background was in the social sciences, had sought to explain the fact that altered states of consciousness (such as deja vu, dreams, psychedelic drug experiences, meditation, near death experience) sometimes seem to feature precognition and premonitions. Peake had produced a tentative synthesis of the ancient idea of the "Eternal Return" with modern ideas like the simulation argument, the holographic universe, and the many worlds interpretation. In Peake’s hypothesis, one lives variants of the same life repeatedly but with the ability to make different choices and experience different outcomes, and a premonition is in fact a memory of the past. Peake became a Consciousness Studies Department Member at Ervin László’s Center For Advanced Studies. László collaborated with Anthony Peake on the book The Immortal Mind: Science and the Continuity of Consciousness Beyond the Brain.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Macroshift theory ===
|
||||
In his book You Can Change the World, László promotes a linking of non-government organizations promoting sustainable development, using the Internet.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Autobiography ===
|
||||
László has written an autobiography entitled Simply Genius! And Other Tales from My Life, published by Hay House Publishers in June 2011.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Reception ==
|
||||
In an essay, Stanislav Grof compared László's work to that of Ken Wilber, saying "Where Wilber outlined what an integral theory of everything should look like, Laszlo actually created one."
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Selected publications ==
|
||||
Introduction to Systems Philosophy: Toward a New Paradigm of Contemporary Thought, Gordon and Breach, 1972; Harper Torchbooks, 1973.
|
||||
The Systems View of the World: A Holistic Vision for Our Time, Hampton Press, 1996.
|
||||
The Whispering Pond: A Personal Guide to the Emerging Vision of Science, Element Books, Ltd., 1996.
|
||||
Evolution: The General Theory, Hampton Press, 1996.
|
||||
Macroshift: Navigating the Transformation to a Sustainable World, Berrett - Koehler, 2001
|
||||
The Connectivity Hypothesis: Foundations of an Integral Science of Quantum, Cosmos, Life, and Consciousness, State University of New York Press, 2003.
|
||||
You Can Change the World: The Global Citizen's Handbook for Living on Planet Earth: A Report of the Club of Budapest, Select Books, 2003.
|
||||
Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything, Inner Traditions International, 2004.
|
||||
Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos : The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality, Inner Traditions, 2006.
|
||||
The Chaos Point: The World at the Crossroads, Hampton Roads, 2006.
|
||||
Quantum Shift in the Global Brain: How the New Scientific Reality Can Change Us and our World, Inner Traditions, 2008.
|
||||
WorldShift 2012: Making Green Business New Politics & Higher Consciousness Work Together, McArthur & Company, 2009.
|
||||
The Immortal Mind: Science and the Continuity of Consciousness Beyond the Brain, with Anthony Peake, Simon and Schuster, 2014.
|
||||
The Intelligence of the Cosmos, Inner Traditions, 2017.
|
||||
Reconnecting to the Source: The New Science of Spiritual Experience, How It Can Change You, and How It Can Transform the World, St. Martin's Essentials, 2020.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
|
||||
ervinlaszlo.com - The personal site of Ervin Laszlo
|
||||
The Life and Career of Dr. Ervin Laszlo interviewed by David William Gibbons December 2011 <http://www.davidgibbons.org/id499.html>
|
||||
22
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_system-0.md
Normal file
22
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_system-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Experimental system"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_system"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:46.582343+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
In scientific research, an experimental system is the physical, technical and procedural basis for an experiment or series of experiments. Historian of science Hans-Jörg Rheinberger defines an experimental system as: "A basic unit of experimental activity combining local, technical, instrumental, institutional, social, and epistemic aspects." Scientists (particularly laboratory biologists) and historians and philosophers of biology have pointed to the development and spread of successful experimental systems, such as those based on popular model organism or scientific apparatus, as key elements in the history of science, particularly since the early 20th century. The choice of an appropriate experimental system is often seen as critical for a scientist's long-term success, as experimental systems can be very productive for some kinds of questions and less productive for others, acquiring a sort of momentum that takes research in unpredicted directions.
|
||||
A successful experimental system must be stable and reproducible enough for scientists to make sense of the system's behavior, but variable and unpredictable enough that it can produce useful results. In many cases, a well-understood experimental system can be "black-boxed" as a standard technique, which can then be a component of other experimental systems. Rheinberger divides experimental systems into two parts: the part under investigation ("epistemic things") and the well-understood part that provides a stable context for experimentation ("technical objects").
|
||||
The development of experimental systems in biology often requires the "domestication" of a particular organism for the laboratory environment, including the creation of relatively homogeneous lines or strains and the tailoring of conditions to highlight the variable aspects that scientists are interested in. Scientific technologies, similarly, often require the development of a full experimental system to go from a viable concept to a technique that works in practice on a usefully consistent basis. For example, the invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is generally attributed to Kary Mullis, who came up with the concept in 1983, but the process of development of PCR into the revolutionary technology it became by the early 1990s took years of work by others at Cetus Corporation—and the basic components of the system had been known since the 1960s DNA synthesis work of Har Gobind Khorana—making "who invented PCR?" a complicated question.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Notes ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
Robert E. Kohler. Lords of the Fly: Drosophila Genetics and the Experimental Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. ISBN 0-226-45063-5
|
||||
Paul Rabinow. Making PCR: A Story of Biotechnology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. ISBN 0-226-70146-8
|
||||
Hans-Jörg Rheinberger. Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997. ISBN 0-8047-2785-6
|
||||
26
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_Misconception-0.md
Normal file
26
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_Misconception-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Fatal Misconception"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_Misconception"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:59.078583+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population is a 2008 book by Matthew Connelly, an associate professor of history at Columbia University.
|
||||
Efforts to control population have been controversial, and Connelly argues that "the road to controlling population growth in the 20th century was paved with good intentions and unpleasant policies that did not work". For example, millions of intrauterine contraceptive devices were exported to poor countries although they were known to cause infections and sterility.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Reception ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Book reviews ===
|
||||
Nicholas Kristof reviewed the book favorably for The New York Times, but concluded: "It's certainly fair of Connelly to dredge up the forced sterilizations, the casual disregard for injuries caused by IUDs, the racism and sexism and all the rest — but we also need to remember that all that is history. The family planning movement has corrected itself, and today it saves the lives of women in poor countries and is central to efforts to reduce poverty worldwide. If we allow that past to tarnish today's efforts by family planning organizations, women in poor countries will be doubly hurt."
|
||||
Reihan Salam reviewed the book for the New York Sun, where he raised some cautionary points.
|
||||
James Hughes, executive director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET) reviewed the book for Times Higher Education. Hughes concluded: "Connelly's pessimism that international institutions can ever be as accountable as national governments is hopefully unwarranted. It seems likely that transnational bodies will be increasingly important in ensuring the health and wellbeing of the nine or ten billion people the planet will soon hold."
|
||||
Helen Epstein reviewed the book favorably for the New York Review of Books, concluding: "The population control movement was a small part of US foreign policy, but its history reminds us of the point American policymakers keep missing: universal human rights are not a luxury. They are themselves the goals we should be seeking."
|
||||
Diana Wyndham reviewed the book for the Australian Review of Public Affairs, concluding: "Connelly's apparent balance—he opposes both pro- and anti-population control excesses—means he is more likely to reach and convince a broader audience to accept his argument that global population control services are bad and should cease. A major worry is that this book's catalogue of failed population control programs will be used by 'Pro-life' groups who want to reinstate the 1984 Mexico City policy ban which, by denying aid, spread sexually transmitted diseases and increased pregnancy-related deaths. If, as he believes, 'the heroic age of population control is over' (p. 16), life on this planet will end because there is only a finite supply of water, food and natural resources. There is wisdom in the family planning slogan: 'Hope is not a method'."
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
32
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Faggin-0.md
Normal file
32
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Faggin-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Federico Faggin"
|
||||
chunk: 1/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Faggin"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:11.564117+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Federico Faggin (Italian pronunciation: [fedeˈriːko fadˈdʒin], Venetian: [faˈdʒiŋ]; born 1 December 1941) is an Italian-American physicist, engineer, inventor and entrepreneur. He is best known for designing the first commercial microprocessor, the Intel 4004. He led the 4004 (MCS-4) project and the design group during the first five years of Intel's microprocessor effort. Faggin also created, while working at Fairchild Semiconductor in 1968, the self-aligned MOS (metal–oxide–semiconductor) silicon-gate technology (SGT), which made possible MOS semiconductor memory chips, CCD image sensors, and the microprocessor. After the 4004, he led development of the Intel 8008 and 8080, using his SGT methodology for random logic chip design, which was essential to the creation of early Intel microprocessors. He was co-founder (with Ralph Ungermann) and CEO of Zilog, the first company solely dedicated to microprocessors, and led the development of the Zilog Z80 and Z8 processors. He was later the co-founder and CEO of Cygnet Technologies, and then Synaptics.
|
||||
In 2010, he received the 2009 National Medal of Technology and Innovation, the highest honor the United States confers for achievements related to technological progress. In 2011, Faggin founded the Federico and Elvia Faggin Foundation to support the scientific study of consciousness at US universities and research institutes. In 2015, the Faggin Foundation helped to establish a $1 million endowment for the Faggin Family Presidential Chair in the Physics of Information at UC Santa Cruz to promote the study of "fundamental questions at the interface of physics and related fields including mathematics, complex systems, biophysics, and cognitive science, with the unifying theme of information in physics."
|
||||
|
||||
== Education and early career ==
|
||||
Born in Vicenza, Italy, Federico grew up in an intellectual environment. His father, Giuseppe Faggin, was a scholar who wrote many academic books and translated, with commentaries, the Enneads of Plotinus from the original Greek into modern Italian. Federico had a strong interest in technology from an early age. He attended a technical high school in Vicenza, I.T.I.S. Alessandro Rossi, and later earned a laurea degree in physics, summa cum laude, from the University of Padua.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Olivetti R&D Labs ===
|
||||
Faggin joined Olivetti at the age of 19. There he co-designed and led the implementation of a small digital transistor computer with 4 K × 12 bit of magnetic memory (1960). The Olivetti R&D department subsequently developed one of the world's first programmable desktop electronic calculators, the Olivetti Programma 101 (1964). After this first work experience, Faggin studied physics at the University of Padua and taught the electronics laboratory course for 3rd year physics students in the academic year 1965–1966.
|
||||
|
||||
=== SGS-Fairchild ===
|
||||
In 1967, Faggin joined SGS-Fairchild, an Italy-based joint venture between the Italian company Società Generale Semiconduttori and the American firm Fairchild Semiconductor. There, he pioneered the MOS metal-gate process technology and designed the first two commercial MOS integrated circuits. Impressed by his achievements, the company transferred Faggin to Fairchild's Palo Alto, California offices in February 1968. When Fairchild exited the joint venture, he accepted a job offer to stay on with Fairchild.
|
||||
|
||||
== Silicon Valley career ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Fairchild Semiconductor ===
|
||||
In Palo Alto, Faggin led the development of silicon-gate technology (SGT), designing its unique process architecture. SGT, a MOSFET with a silicon self-aligned gate, became one of the most transformative advancements in microelectronics.
|
||||
SGT laid the foundation for all modern NMOS and CMOS integrated circuits. It enabled key innovations, including MOS semiconductor memory chips, the first microprocessor, and the first CCD and EPROM with floating silicon gates. Replacing the earlier metal-gate MOS technology, SGT was rapidly adopted worldwide, and within a decade, it rendered bipolar transistors-based integrated circuits obsolete.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Fairchild 3708 ===
|
||||
At Fairchild, Faggin designed the first commercial integrated circuit using silicon-gate technology with self-aligned MOSFET transistors: the Fairchild 3708. The 3708 was an 8-bit analog multiplexer with decoding logic, replacing the equivalent Fairchild 3705 that used metal-gate technology. The 3708 was 5 times faster, had 100 times less junction leakage and was much more reliable than the 3705, demonstrating the superiority of SGT over metal-gate MOS. See also: Faggin, F., Klein T. (1969). "A Faster Generation of MOS Devices With Low Threshold Is Riding The Crest of the New Wave, Silicon-Gate IC's". Electronics, 29 Sep. 1969.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Intel ===
|
||||
23
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Faggin-1.md
Normal file
23
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Faggin-1.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Federico Faggin"
|
||||
chunk: 2/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Faggin"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:11.564117+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Federico Faggin joined Intel from Fairchild in 1970 as the project leader and designer of the MCS-4 family of microprocessors, which included the 4004, the world's first single-chip microprocessor. Fairchild was not taking advantage of the SGT and Faggin wanted to use his new technology to design advanced chips.
|
||||
The 4004 (1971) was made possible by the advanced capabilities of the silicon gate technology (SGT) being enhanced through the novel random logic chip design methodology that Faggin created at Intel. It was this new methodology, together with his several design innovations, that allowed him to fit the microprocessor in one small chip. A single-chip microprocessor – an idea that was expected to occur many years in the future – became possible in 1971 by using SGT with two additional innovations: (1) "buried contacts" that doubled the circuit density, and (2) the use of bootstrap loads with 2-phase clocks—previously considered impossible with SGT— that improved the speed 5 times, while reducing the chip area by half compared with metal-gate MOS.
|
||||
The design methodology created by Faggin was utilized for the implementation of all Intel's early microprocessors and later also for Zilog's Z80.
|
||||
The Intel 4004 – a 4-bit CPU (central processing unit) on a single chip – was a member of a family of 4 custom chips designed for Busicom, a Japanese calculator manufacturer. The other members of the family (constituting the MCS-4 family) were: the 4001, a 2k-bit metal-mask programmable ROM with programmable input-output lines; the 4002, a 320-bit dynamic RAM with a 4-bit output port; and the 4003, a 10-bit serial input and serial/parallel output, static shift register to use as an I/O expander. Faggin promoted the idea of broadly marketing the MCS-4 to customers other than Busicom by showing Intel management how customers could design a control system using the 4004. He designed and built a 4004 tester using the 4004 as the controller of the tester, thus convincing Bob Noyce to renegotiate the exclusivity clause with Busicom that didn't allow Intel to sell the MCS-4 line to other customers.
|
||||
In 2009, the four contributors to the 4004 were inducted as Fellows of the Computer History Museum. Ted Hoff, head of Application Research Department, formulated the architectural proposal and the instruction set with assistance from Stan Mazor and working in conjunction with Busicom's Masatoshi Shima. However, none of them was a chip designer and none was familiar with the new Silicon Gate Technology (SGT). The silicon design was the essential missing ingredient to making a microprocessor since everything else was already known. Federico Faggin led the project in a different department without Hoff's and Mazor's involvement. Faggin had invented the original SGT at Fairchild Semiconductor in 1968 and provided additional refinements and inventions to make possible the implementation of the 4004 in a single chip. With routine help from Shima, Faggin completed the chip design in January 1971.
|
||||
The Intel 2102A is a redesign of the Intel 2102 static RAM, where Federico Faggin introduced to Intel, for the first time, the depletion load, combining the silicon gate technology with ionic implantation. The design was done toward the end of 1973 by Federico Faggin and Dick Pashley. The 2102A was 5 times faster than the 2102, opening a new direction for Intel.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Early Intel microprocessors ===
|
||||
Faggin's silicon design methodology was used for implementing all Intel's early microprocessors.
|
||||
The Intel 8008 was the world's first single-chip 8-bit CPU and, like the 4004, was built with p-channel SGT. The 8008 development was originally assigned to Hal Feeney in March 1970 but was suspended until the 4004 was completed. It was resumed in January 1971 under Faggin's direction utilizing the basic circuits and methodology he had developed for the 4004, with Hal Feeney doing the chip design. The CPU architecture of the 8008 was originally created by CTC Inc. for the Datapoint 2200 intelligent terminal, in which it was implemented in discrete IC logic.
|
||||
The Intel 4040 microprocessor (1974) was a much improved, machine-code-compatible version of the 4004 CPU allowing it to interface directly with standard memories and I/O devices. Federico Faggin created the architecture of the 4040 and supervised Tom Innes who did the design work.
|
||||
The 8080 microprocessor (1974) was the first high-performance 8-bit microprocessor in the market, using the faster n-channel SGT. The 8080 was conceived and architected by Faggin, and designed by Masatoshi Shima under Faggin's supervision. The 8080 was a major improvement over the 8008 architecture, yet it retained software compatibility with it. It was much faster and easier to interface to external memory and I/O devices than the 8008. The high performance and low cost of the 8080 let developers use microprocessors for many new applications, including the forerunners of the personal computer.
|
||||
When Faggin left Intel at the end of 1974 to found Zilog with Ralph Ungermann, he was R&D department manager responsible for all MOS products, except for dynamic memories.
|
||||
31
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Faggin-2.md
Normal file
31
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Faggin-2.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Federico Faggin"
|
||||
chunk: 3/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Faggin"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:11.564117+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
=== Zilog ===
|
||||
The Zilog Z80 was the first microprocessor created by Zilog, the first company entirely dedicated to microprocessors. It was started by Federico Faggin and Ralph Ungermann in November 1974. Faggin was Zilog's president and CEO until the end of 1980 and he conceived and designed the Z80 CPU and its family of programmable peripheral components. He also co-designed the CPU whose project leader was Masatoshi Shima.
|
||||
The Z80-CPU was a major improvement over the 8080, yet it retained software compatibility with it. Much faster and with more than twice as many registers and instructions of the 8080, it was part of a family of components that included several intelligent peripherals (the Z80-PIO, a programmable parallel input-output controller; the Z80-CTC, a programmable counter-timer; the Z80-SIO, programmable serial communications interface controller, and the Z80-DMA, programmable direct memory access controller). This chip family allowed the design of powerful and low-cost microcomputers with performance comparable to minicomputers. The Z80-CPU had a substantially better bus structure and interrupt structure than the 8080 and could interface directly with dynamic RAM, since it included an internal memory-refresh controller. The Z80 was used in many of early personal computers, as well as in video game systems such as the MSX, ColecoVision, Master System. The Z80 ceased production in 2024.
|
||||
The Zilog Z8 micro controller (1978) was one of the first single-chip microcontrollers in the market. It integrated an 8-bit CPU, RAM, ROM and I/O facilities, sufficient for many control applications. Faggin conceived the Z8 in 1974, soon after he founded Zilog, but then decided to give priority to the Z80. The Z8 was designed in 1976–78 and ended production in 2024.
|
||||
|
||||
=== The Communication CoSystem ===
|
||||
The Communication CoSystem (1984). The Cosystem was conceived by Faggin and designed and produced by Cygnet Technologies, Inc., the second startup company of Faggin. Attached to a personal computer and to a standard phone line, the CoSystem could automatically handle all the personal voice and data communications of the user, including electronic mail, database access, computer screen transfers during a voice communication, call record keeping, etc. The patent covering the CoSystem is highly cited in the personal communication field.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Synaptics ===
|
||||
In 1986 Faggin co-founded and was CEO of Synaptics until 1999, becoming chairman from 1999 to 2009. Synaptics was initially dedicated to R&D in artificial neural networks for pattern-recognition applications using analog VLSI. Synaptics introduced the I1000, the world's first single-chip optical character recognizer in 1991. In 1994, Synaptics introduced the touchpad to replace the cumbersome trackball then in use in laptop computers. The touchpad was broadly adopted by the industry. Synaptics also introduced the early touchscreens that were eventually adopted for intelligent phones and tablets; applications that now dominate the market. Faggin came up with the general product idea and led a group of engineers who further refined the idea through many brainstorming sessions. Faggin is a co-inventor of ten patents assigned to Synaptics. He is chairman emeritus of Synaptics.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Foveon ===
|
||||
During his tenure as president and CEO of Foveon, from 2003 to 2008, Faggin revitalized the company and provided a new technological and business direction resulting in image sensors superior in all critical parameters to the best sensors of the competition, while using approximately half the chip size of competing devices. Faggin also oversaw the successful acquisition of Foveon by the Japanese Sigma Corporation in November 2008.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Federico and Elvia Faggin Foundation ===
|
||||
Founded in 2011 the "Federico and Elvia Faggin Foundation" supports the scientific study of consciousness at US universities and research institutes. The purpose of the Foundation is to advance the understanding of consciousness through theoretical and experimental research. Faggin's interest in consciousness has his roots in the study of artificial neural networks at Synaptics, a company he started in 1986, that prompted his inquiry into whether or not it is possible to build a conscious computer.
|
||||
|
||||
== The theory of consciousness ==
|
||||
In the book Irreducible - Consciousness, life, computers, and human nature (Essentia Books, 2024), Federico Faggin proposed a theory of consciousness according to which consciousness is a purely quantum phenomenon, unique to each of us. This theory is supported by two quantum physics theorems: the no-cloning theorem and Holevo's theorem. The first states that a pure quantum state is not reproducible; the second limits the amount of measurable information to one classical bit for each qubit that describes the state. Therefore, it is possible to postulate that a quantum system that is in a pure state is aware of its state, since conscious experiences (qualia) have all the essential properties of pure states, i.e., it is private knowledge only minimally knowable from the outside. However, the mathematical representation of the experience (the pure state) does not describe the experience, which remains private and knowable only from within by the system that is in that state. No classical machine can ever be conscious given that classical information is reproducible (program and data can be copied perfectly), while the quantum state is private. Consciousness is therefore not linked to the functioning of the body and can continue to exist even after the death of the body. The body behaves like a drone controlled "top down" by consciousness. The new D'Ariano-Faggin theory is based on the theoretical studies of Professor Giacomo D'Ariano, who derived quantum theory from principles based on information theory, and on the experiential, philosophical and scientific studies of Federico Faggin on the nature of consciousness.
|
||||
|
||||
== Original documents ==
|
||||
69
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Faggin-3.md
Normal file
69
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Faggin-3.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Federico Faggin"
|
||||
chunk: 4/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Faggin"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:11.564117+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
=== On the MOS silicon-gate technology (SGT) for IC and the Fairchild 3708 (the first application of SGT) ===
|
||||
Faggin, F., Klein, T., and Vadasz, L.: Insulated Gate Field Effect Transistor Integrated Circuits with Silicon Gates. The Silicon Gate Technology with self-aligned gates was presented by its developer Federico Faggin at the IEEE International Electron Device Meeting on 23 October 1968, in Washington D.C. This new technology empowered the design of dynamic RAM memories, non-volatile memories, CCD sensors and the microprocessor.
|
||||
Federico Faggin and Thomas Klein.: "A Faster Generation of MOS Devices with Low Thresholds is Riding the Crest of the New Wave, Silicon-Gate IC's". The article published in Electronics (29 September 1969) introduces the Fairchild 3708, the world's first commercial integrated circuit using Silicon Gate Technology, designed by Federico Faggin at Fairchild in 1968.
|
||||
F. Faggin, T. Klein: Silicon-Gate Technology. "Solid State Electronics", 1970, Vol. 13, pp. 1125–1144
|
||||
|
||||
=== On the Intel 4004 microprocessor ===
|
||||
F. Faggin and M. E. Hoff: "Standard Parts and Custom Design Merge in a Four-chip Processor Kit". Electronics, 24 April 1972
|
||||
F. Faggin, et al.: "The MCS-4 An LSI Microcomputer System". IEEE 1972 Region Six Conference.
|
||||
Faggin, Federico; Capocaccia, F. "A New Integrated MOS Shift Register", Proceedings XV International Electronics Scientific Congress, Rome, April 1968, pp. 143–152. This paper describes a novel static MOS shift register, developed at SGS-Fairchild (now ST Micro) at the end of 1967, before Federico Faggin joined Fairchild's R&D in Palo Alto (Ca) in February 1968. Faggin later used this new shift register in the MCS-4 chips, including the 4004.
|
||||
Initials F.F. (Federico Faggin) on the 4004 design (1971). The 4004 bears the initials F.F. of its designer, Federico Faggin, etched on one corner of the chip. Signing the chip was a spontaneous gesture of proud authorship and was also an original idea imitated after him by many Intel designers.
|
||||
Busicom 141-PF Printing Calculator Engineering Prototype (1971). (Gift of Federico Faggin to the Computer History Museum, Mountain View, CA). The CHM collection catalog shows pictures of the engineering prototype of the Busicom 141-PF desktop calculator. The engineering prototype used the world's first microprocessor to have ever been produced. This one-of-a-kind prototype was a personal present by Busicom's president Mr. Yoshio Kojima to Federico Faggin for his successful leadership of the design and development of the 4004 and three other memory and I/O chips (the MCS-4 chipset). After keeping it in his home for 25 years, Faggin donated it to the CHM in 1996.
|
||||
|
||||
== Publications ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Articles ===
|
||||
"The Birth of the Microprocessor" by Federico Faggin. Byte, March 1992, vol.17, no.3, pp. 145–150.
|
||||
"The History of the 4004" by Federico Faggin, Marcian E. Hoff Jr., Stanley Mazor, Masatoshi Shima. IEEE Micro, December 1996, Volume 16 Number 6.
|
||||
"The 4004 microprocessor of Faggin, Hoff, Mazor, and Shima". IEEE Solid State Circuits Magazine, Winter 2009, vol.1 no.1.
|
||||
"The MOS silicon gate technology and the first microprocessors" by Federico Faggin. La Rivista del Nuovo Cimento, year 2015, issue 12-December. SIF (Italian Physical Society)
|
||||
"How we made the microprocessor" by Federico Faggin. Nature Electronics, vol. 1, January 2018. Published online: 8 January 2018
|
||||
"Hard Problem and Free Will: an information-theoretical approach" by Giacomo Mauro D'Ariano and Federico Faggin. arXiv:2012.06580 28. January 2021
|
||||
|
||||
=== Books ===
|
||||
Silicon: From the Invention of the Microprocessor to the New Science of Consciousness by Federico Faggin. Waterside Productions (February 2021)
|
||||
Artificial Intelligence Versus Natural Intelligence. Springer International Publishing, January 2022
|
||||
Irriducibile - La coscienza, la vita, i computer e la nostra natura by Federico Faggin. Mondadori (August 2022) "Sono convinto che quando capiremo che la fisica quantistica non descrive la realtà esteriore ma quella interiore essa cesserà di essere incomprensibile.”
|
||||
Irreducible - Consciousness, life, computers, and human nature, by Federico Faggin. Essentia Books 2024.
|
||||
Oltre l'invisibile. Dove scienza e spiritualità si uniscono Mondadori (June 2024).
|
||||
|
||||
== Awards ==
|
||||
|
||||
Source for the above-mentioned awards:
|
||||
|
||||
2012: Global Information Technology Award from the President of Armenia.
|
||||
2012: Honorary PhD from the Polytechnic University (Armenia)
|
||||
2012: Premio Franca Florio, given by Ministro Francesco Profumo and Prof. Ing. Patrizia Livreri
|
||||
2013: Honorary PhD in science from Chapman University (CA)
|
||||
2014: Enrico Fermi Award, given by the Italian Society of Physics: "For the invention of the MOS silicon gate technology that led him to the realization in 1971 of the first modern microprocessor."
|
||||
2018: 2018 IEEE Italy Section Honorary Award to Federico Faggin for his outstanding contributions to the self aligned MOS silicon gate theory & technology and to the development of the first microprocessor
|
||||
2018: 2018 AAAS Fellow by the American Association for the Advancement of Science
|
||||
2019: PhD (Dottorato di ricerca) honoris causa in computer engineering from the University of Pisa (Italy) Università di Pisa.
|
||||
2023: Sigillum Magnum from the University of Bologna
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
List of pioneers in computer science
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
|
||||
the autobiography book: "Silicon: From the Invention of the Microprocessor to the New Science of Consciousness" 2019 - https://www.amazon.com/Silicon-Invention-Microprocessor-Science-Consciousness-ebook/dp/B08W742297
|
||||
|
||||
The Intel 4004 Microprocessor and the Silicon Gate Technology, A testimonial from Federico Faggin, designer of the 4004 and developer of its enabling technology – Federico Faggin personally gives details, history and nitty-gritty details about the Intel 4004's development and his inventions, innovations and ideas that made it all possible.
|
||||
"Executive Profile" from Foveon.com
|
||||
IEEE Global History Network Biography of Federico Faggin
|
||||
Oral History of Federico Faggin Computer History Museum. Recorded 2004–05
|
||||
Busicom Calculator Engineering Prototype (Gift of Federico Faggin to the Computer History Museum, Mountain View, California).
|
||||
Video of the Intel Intellec 4 microcomputer on YouTube
|
||||
"Computers Still No Match for Human Intelligence" Video and article interview with Federico Faggin 40 years after the release of the Intel 4004 microprocessor
|
||||
39
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernhurst_Research_Station-0.md
Normal file
39
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernhurst_Research_Station-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Fernhurst Research Station"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernhurst_Research_Station"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:38.581799+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Fernhurst Research Station was a crop protection chemical research institute in West Sussex, mainly run by ICI, for the fruit industry. The site is to the east of the A286, around a mile south of the village of Fernhurst and a mile north of the Haslemere to Petersfield Serpent Trail.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== History ==
|
||||
Plant Protection Limited moved to the site in 1945 and opened a research institute on the estate of Sir Felix Schuster (1854–1936). The research institute was to investigate pest and disease control in horticultural crops. As well as being an administrative site, the station comprised a 60 acres (24 ha) orchard including 9 acres of plums and 26 acres of dessert apples at Hurstfold Farm.
|
||||
In June 1951 an international conference, with scientists from 39 countries, took place at the site on food scarcity. On 10 May 1955, the site was visited by the Duke of Edinburgh. Another international conference took place at the site in June 1956.
|
||||
In 1958 Plant Protection Limited became a wholly owned subsidiary of Imperial Chemical Industries: ICI Plant Protection Division, which had its international headquarters at the site until the 1990s; in 1986 a new international conference centre was opened on the site by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. ICI Public Health was formed in 1989 and based at the site.
|
||||
Throughout its history, indoor and outdoor crops were grown for wholesale and for research, and the station developed advanced growing and application methods for crops, including the establishment of a film unit. In April 1990, the site won a Queen's Award for Technological Achievement for herbicides, fungicides and pesticides.
|
||||
The site was taken over by Zeneca in 1994, and later Syngenta, becoming the headquarters of Syngenta Europe Ltd. Syngenta left the site in December 2001, and the site ceased to function as a research station or administrative centre apart from the principal building, which is the head office of Aspinal of London. The other office buildings were left unoccupied and were subsequently comprehensively vandalised. At its peak, around 700 people had worked at the site.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Redevelopment ==
|
||||
|
||||
The redevelopment of the Highfield part of the site for housing was approved by the South Downs National Park Authority in 2020 and expanded upon in 2023.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
Fruit and Vegetable Preservation Research Station
|
||||
Fruit picking
|
||||
List of environmental research institutes
|
||||
Scottish Crop Research Institute
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Britain From Above 1951: Verdley
|
||||
Britain From Above: Hurstfold
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Genevieve Miller Lifetime Achievement Award"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genevieve_Miller_Lifetime_Achievement_Award"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:07.339428+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Genevieve Miller Lifetime Achievement Award, formerly known as the American Association for the History of Medicines's Lifetime Award, established in 1988, is presented annually to a retired member of the American Association for the History of Medicine who has demonstrated significant contributions to history of medicine. It was renamed in honour of Genevieve Miller in 2014.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Recipients ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
101
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Sarton_Medal-0.md
Normal file
101
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Sarton_Medal-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "George Sarton Medal"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Sarton_Medal"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:08.535061+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The George Sarton Medal is the most prestigious award given by the History of Science Society. It has been awarded annually since 1955. It is awarded to a historian of science from the international community who became distinguished for "a lifetime of scholarly achievement" in the field.
|
||||
The medal was designed by Bern Dibner and is named after George Sarton, the founder of the journal Isis and one of the founders of modern history of science.
|
||||
The Sarton Medalists are:
|
||||
|
||||
1955 – George Sarton
|
||||
1956 – Charles Singer and Dorothea Waley Singer
|
||||
1957 – Lynn Thorndike
|
||||
1958 – John Farquhar Fulton
|
||||
1959 – Richard Shryock
|
||||
1960 – Owsei Temkin
|
||||
1961 – Alexandre Koyré
|
||||
1962 – E. J. Dijksterhuis
|
||||
1963 – Vassili Zoubov
|
||||
1964 – not awarded
|
||||
1965 – J. R. Partington
|
||||
1966 – Anneliese Maier
|
||||
1967 – not awarded
|
||||
1968 – Joseph Needham
|
||||
1969 – Kurt Vogel
|
||||
1970 – Walter Pagel
|
||||
1971 – Willy Hartner
|
||||
1972 – Kiyosi Yabuuti
|
||||
1973 – Henry Guerlac
|
||||
1974 – I. Bernard Cohen
|
||||
1975 – René Taton
|
||||
1976 – Bern Dibner
|
||||
1977 – Derek T. Whiteside
|
||||
1978 – Adolph Pavlovich Yushkevich
|
||||
1979 – Maria Luisa Righini-Bonelli
|
||||
1980 – Marshall Clagett
|
||||
1981 – A. Rupert Hall and Marie Boas Hall
|
||||
1982 – Thomas S. Kuhn
|
||||
1983 – Georges Canguilhem
|
||||
1984 – Charles Coulston Gillispie
|
||||
1985 – Co-winners: Paolo Rossi and Richard S. Westfall
|
||||
1986 – Ernst Mayr
|
||||
1987 – G.E.R. Lloyd
|
||||
1988 – Stillman Drake
|
||||
1989 – Gerald Holton
|
||||
1990 – A. Hunter Dupree
|
||||
1991 – Mirko D. Grmek
|
||||
1992 – Edward Grant
|
||||
1993 – John L. Heilbron
|
||||
1994 – Allen G. Debus
|
||||
1995 – Charles E. Rosenberg
|
||||
1996 – Loren Graham
|
||||
1997 – Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs
|
||||
1998 – Thomas L. Hankins
|
||||
1999 – David C. Lindberg
|
||||
2000 – Frederic L. Holmes
|
||||
2001 – Daniel J. Kevles
|
||||
2002 – John C. Greene
|
||||
2003 – Nancy Siraisi
|
||||
2004 – Robert E. Kohler
|
||||
2005 – A. I. Sabra
|
||||
2006 – Mary Jo Nye
|
||||
2007 – Martin J. S. Rudwick
|
||||
2008 – Ronald L. Numbers
|
||||
2009 – John E. Murdoch
|
||||
2010 – Michael McVaugh
|
||||
2011 – Robert J. Richards
|
||||
2012 – Lorraine Daston
|
||||
2013 – Simon Schaffer
|
||||
2014 – Steven Shapin
|
||||
2015 – Robert Fox
|
||||
2016 – Katharine Park
|
||||
2017 – Garland E. Allen
|
||||
2018 – Sally Gregory Kohlstedt
|
||||
2019 – M. Norton Wise
|
||||
2020 – Jim Bennett
|
||||
2021 – Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent
|
||||
2022 – Margaret W. Rossiter
|
||||
2023 – Theodore Porter
|
||||
2024 – Jane Maienschein
|
||||
2025 – Pamela H. Smith
|
||||
2026 – Lynn K. Nyhart
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
List of history awards
|
||||
List of general science and technology awards
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Sarton Medal webpage from the History of Science Society
|
||||
History of Science Society, The Sarton Medalists Archived 2015-02-20 at the Wayback Machine
|
||||
History of Science Society. "2007 Award Winners". Archived from the original on 2008-11-12. Retrieved 2008-11-26.
|
||||
History of Science Society. "2008 Award Winners". Archived from the original on 2009-07-07. Retrieved 2008-11-26.
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "HIST Award for Outstanding Achievement in the History of Chemistry"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIST_Award_for_Outstanding_Achievement_in_the_History_of_Chemistry"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:10.864389+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The HIST Award for Outstanding Achievement in the History of Chemistry (2013–present) is given by the Division of the History of Chemistry of the American Chemical Society (ACS). The award was originally known as the Dexter Award (1956–2001) and then briefly as the Sidney M. Edelstein Award (2002–2009), both given by the ACS.
|
||||
The Dexter Award was originally established by Sidney Milton Edelstein, a founder of the Dexter Chemical Corporation, to recognize an "outstanding career of contributions to the history of chemistry". As the Dexter Award, it was sponsored by the Dexter Corporation except for its final two years, when it was sponsored by the Mildred and Sidney Edelstein Foundation.
|
||||
The award was briefly known as the Sidney M. Edelstein Award from 2002 to 2009, but was still given by the ACS. As such, the Sidney M. Edelstein Award should be distinguished from the Sidney Edelstein Prize (1968–present), which has been given continuously since 1968 by the Society for the History of Technology to recognize "an outstanding scholarly book in the history of technology."
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Recipients ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== HIST Award (2013–present) ===
|
||||
2024 James L. Marshall and Virginia R. Marshall
|
||||
2023 Geoffrey Rayner-Canham and Marelene Rayner-Canham
|
||||
2022 Marco Beretta
|
||||
2021 Mary Virginia Orna
|
||||
2020 Lawrence M. Principe
|
||||
2019 Otto Theodor Benfey
|
||||
2018 David E. Lewis
|
||||
2017 Jeffrey I. Seeman
|
||||
2016 Ursula Klein
|
||||
2015 Christoph Meinel
|
||||
2014 Ernst Homburg
|
||||
2013 William R. Newman
|
||||
2012 No Award
|
||||
2011 No Award
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Sidney M. Edelstein Award (2002–2009) ===
|
||||
2009 Trevor Harvey Levere
|
||||
2008 John Shipley Rowlinson
|
||||
2007 Anthony S. Travis
|
||||
2006 Peter J. T. Morris (Peter John Turnbull Morris)
|
||||
2005 William B. Jensen
|
||||
2004 Joseph B. Lambert
|
||||
2003 David M. Knight
|
||||
2002 John Parascandola
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Dexter Award (1956–2001) ===
|
||||
2001 William Arthur Smeaton
|
||||
2000 Alan Rocke
|
||||
1999 Mary Jo Nye
|
||||
1998 Seymour H. Mauskopf
|
||||
1997 Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent
|
||||
1996 Keith J. Laidler
|
||||
1995 William H. Brock
|
||||
1994 Frederic L. Holmes
|
||||
1993 Joseph S. Fruton
|
||||
1992 John T. Stock
|
||||
1991 Owen Hannaway
|
||||
1990 Colin A. Russell
|
||||
1989 D. Stanley Tarbell
|
||||
1988 (Lutz F. Haber) Ludwig F. Haber
|
||||
1987 Allen G. Debus
|
||||
1986 Robert G. W. Anderson
|
||||
1985 Robert Multhauf
|
||||
1984 Maurice Crosland
|
||||
1983 Arnold Thackray
|
||||
1982 John H. Wotiz
|
||||
1981 Cyril Stanley Smith
|
||||
1980 Maurice Daumas
|
||||
1979 Joseph Needham
|
||||
1978 George B. Kauffman
|
||||
1977 Modesto Bargalló
|
||||
1976 Trevor Illtyd Williams
|
||||
1975 Jan W. van Spronsen (Johannes Willem van Spronsen)
|
||||
1974 No Award
|
||||
1973 Bernard Jaffe
|
||||
1972 Henry Guerlac
|
||||
1971 Wyndham D. Miles
|
||||
1970 Ferenc Szabadváry
|
||||
1969 Walter Pagel
|
||||
1968 Aaron J. Ihde
|
||||
1967 Mary Elvira Weeks
|
||||
1966 Earle R. Caley
|
||||
1965 Martin Levey
|
||||
1964 Eduard Farber
|
||||
1963 Douglas McKie
|
||||
1962 Henry M. Leicester
|
||||
1961 James R. Partington
|
||||
1960 Denis Duveen
|
||||
1959 John Read
|
||||
1958 Eva Armstrong
|
||||
1957 Williams Haynes
|
||||
1956 Ralph E. Oesper
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
List of chemistry awards
|
||||
List of history awards
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Harvard Institute for International Development"
|
||||
chunk: 1/2
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Institute_for_International_Development"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:39.773620+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID) was a think tank dedicated to helping nations join the global economy, operating between 1974 and 2000. It was a center within Harvard University, United States.
|
||||
|
||||
== Foundation and leadership ==
|
||||
The Harvard Institute for International Development originated when Harvard University's Center for International Affairs (CFIA) tried to move away from a controversial role in giving advice on topics such as arms control, foreign aid and development.
|
||||
The CFIA preferred a more academic role of teaching and research.
|
||||
The Ford Foundation and other organizations involved in aid-giving still wanted Harvard to provide hands-on training for their staff. In 1962 the Development Advisory Service was established for this purpose, associated with the CFIA but independent. It was renamed the HIID in 1974.
|
||||
In 1980 the economist Arnold Harberger of the Harvard University was selected as head of the institute. The announcement met with protests from students and staff since Harberger had previously advised the Augusto Pinochet military regime in Chile.
|
||||
He withdrew and Dwight Perkins, an economist and specialist in China, took the job.
|
||||
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the economist Jeffrey Sachs became head of the institute.
|
||||
|
||||
== Development programs ==
|
||||
The HIID became the umbrella organization for overseas aid and development programs led by the university but funded by the government or foundations.
|
||||
The HIID coordinated development assistance, training, and research on Africa, Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, and Latin America. The Institute helped developing nations to achieve economic growth and improve their people's welfare.
|
||||
The institute provided staff for various development projects. For example, in the late 1970s David Korten headed a project funded by the Ford Foundation to assist in organization and management of national family-planning programs.
|
||||
In 1991 the HIID launched a program called WorldTeach that sent college student and graduates to schools in developing countries for a one-year assignment. Countries that had requested volunteers were Costa Rica, Ecuador, Namibia, South Africa, Poland, Thailand and China.
|
||||
|
||||
== Research ==
|
||||
|
||||
The HIID undertook many research projects related to international development.
|
||||
For example, in the early 1980s, the HIID undertook a study of several of Indonesia's national development programs, including grants for village development, schools, family planning and rice yield improvement programs. The programs had been running for some time, but the study uncovered a number of anomalies that were affecting their efficiency.
|
||||
The HIID collaborated with the Women In Development office of USAID in developing the Harvard Analytical Framework, also called the Gender Roles Framework, one of the earliest frameworks for understanding differences between men and women in their participation in the economy. This has great importance in helping policy makers understand the economic case for allocating resources to women as well as men. The framework was described in 1984.
|
||||
In 1987, the International Tropical Timber Organization commissioned HIID to prepare a review of current knowledge of multiple-use management of tropical hardwood forests. Of interest was the potential for non-timber products and services that could assist in sustaining the forests. HIID completed the study in 1988 and issued updated versions in 1990 and 1992.
|
||||
Research published in 1989 described the effects of price controls in emerging economies in creating parallel or black markets.
|
||||
As Ukraine started the transition towards a market economy in the early 1990s, the HIID supported a survey on barter in transition economies.
|
||||
In 1993, the HIID managed an education sector assessment in El Salvador under contract from USAID, the purpose being to obtain reliable information for use in setting a national educational policy.
|
||||
The HIID and the Geneva-based World Economic Forum jointly produced the 1997 Global Competitiveness Report based on a late-1996 survey of 2,827 firms in 53 countries. Among other questions, respondents were asked to say how often they saw evidence of corruption, and the answers were used to rank each country.
|
||||
In mid-1998 the World Economic Forum and HIID assembled a team of experts to determine the causes of the Asian financial crisis and the mechanisms of the crisis, to determine methods of reducing the probability of similar crises in the future and to identify policy changes that would help the affected countries resume growth.
|
||||
In the late 1990s, USAID sponsored the Equity and Growth through Economic Research (EAGER) project, with the HIID commissioning work in eleven African countries. Both public strategies for growth and trade regimes for growth had both been intensively studied in the past, but resulting reforms had met little success. The focus of the EAGER research was to understand why programs had not been sustained, and what could be done to change that.
|
||||
The above are just examples of the many research projects undertaken by the Institute.
|
||||
|
||||
== Russian aid controversy ==
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Harvard Institute for International Development"
|
||||
chunk: 2/2
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Institute_for_International_Development"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:39.773620+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) funded a project by the HIID to help rebuild the Russian economy on the basis of western concepts of ethics, democracy and free markets.
|
||||
Jeffrey Sachs was said to have "packaged HIID as an AID consultant". USAID were glad to accept help from Harvard, since they lacked expertise for such a project.
|
||||
The HIID oversaw and guided disbursement of $300 million of US aid to Russia with little oversight by USAID.
|
||||
HIID advisers worked closely with representatives from Russia, notably Anatoly Chubais and his associates.
|
||||
Once USAID accepted help from the HIID, HIID was in a position to recommend U.S. aid policies while being a recipient of that aid. It also put the HIID in a position of power overseeing some of their competitors.
|
||||
The project, which ran from 1992 to 1997, was headed by economist Andrei Shleifer and lawyer Jonathan Hay.
|
||||
HIID received $40.4 million in return for its activities in Russia, awarded without the normal competitive bidding approach.
|
||||
In 1996 the US Congress asked the General Accounting Office to investigate the HIID activities in the Russian aid program after multiple complaints to the congressional office had been made. The initial published GAO report considered the USAID's oversight over Harvard's Russia project "lax." The US government attempted to hold the Harvard players responsible for their clear conflicts of interest and undeniable misuse of government money but action was slow to ensue.
|
||||
The original GAO report was critical, and further funding was withdrawn from HIID on the basis that as a contractor HIID has "abused the trust of the U.S. government by using personal relationships for private gain".
|
||||
in 1997, the USAID ended a $14 million grant to the Harvard Institute for International Development after Andrei Shleifer was accused of using the institute to help his wife Nancy Zimmerman's investments in Russia. As part of a settlement, Zimmerman subsequently paid $1.5 million to the USG through one of her companies, Farallon Fixed Income Associates.
|
||||
In September 2000, Shleifer and Hay were accused by the Justice Department of making personal investments in Russia, and therefore failing to act as impartial advisers. The episode became a factor in the dismissal of Larry Summers, who had set up the project as deputy secretary of the treasury under President Bill Clinton.
|
||||
|
||||
== Dissolution ==
|
||||
The President of the institute from 1995, Jeffrey Sachs, resigned in 1999 to form the Center for International Development (CID), which would focus more on academic research than on consulting.
|
||||
The CID was founded as a joint project of the John F. Kennedy School of Government and the HIID.
|
||||
A task force was appointed in July 1999 to review the future of the HIID, which in January 2000 concluded that it should be dissolved, with its functions distributed to faculties within the University.
|
||||
Reasons included the Russian conflict of interest scandal, structural problems and financial deficits in 1998 and 1999.
|
||||
In 2005, the university was required to pay the US government a settlement of $26.5 million for their involvement in the Russian development scandal.
|
||||
The CID, housed at the Harvard Kennedy School, is now Harvard's primary center for research on international development.
|
||||
|
||||
== Selected publications ==
|
||||
The institute began issuing a series of Development Discussion Papers soon after it began operation, and eventually published more than 700 papers by HIID staff members documenting their project experience and research results.
|
||||
Sub-series covered agriculture and food policy, education, taxation, economic reform and the environment.
|
||||
The HIID also published some full-length books that covered broader topics. Examples:
|
||||
|
||||
Dwight Heald Perkins; Michael Roemer (1991). Reforming economic systems in developing countries. Harvard Institute for International Development. ISBN 0-674-75319-4.
|
||||
Dwight Heald Perkins, ed. (1997). Assisting development in a changing world: the Harvard Institute for International Development, 1980–1995. Harvard Institute for International Development. ISBN 0-674-04997-7.
|
||||
David L. Lindauer; Hanʼguk Kaebal Yŏnʼguwŏn (1997). The strains of economic growth: labor unrest and social dissatisfaction in Korea. Harvard Institute for International Development. ISBN 0-674-83981-1.
|
||||
Richard D. Mallon (2000). The new missionaries: memoirs of a foreign adviser in less-developed countries. Harvard Institute for International Development. ISBN 0-674-00348-9.
|
||||
|
||||
== Notable alumni ==
|
||||
Ronald MacLean Abaroa, mayor of La Paz, Bolivia
|
||||
Betty Oyella Bigombe, Uganda government minister and consultant to the World Bank
|
||||
Leonor Briones, treasurer of the Philippines 1998–2001
|
||||
Richard A. Cash, American global health researcher
|
||||
Zéphirin Diabré, opposition political leader in Burkina Faso
|
||||
John C. Edmunds, professor of Finance
|
||||
John Luke Gallup, American economist
|
||||
Rachel Glennerster, executive director of the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab
|
||||
Mauricio Bailón González, general director of the General Directorate of International Affairs of the Secretariat of Health of México
|
||||
Grace Goodell, professor of International Development
|
||||
Christopher A. Hartwell, president, Center for Social and Economic Research (CASE) in Warsaw
|
||||
Jonathan Hay, on site general director of the HIID program in Russia
|
||||
Catharine Bond Hill, president of Vassar College
|
||||
David Korten, economist, author and political activist
|
||||
David Laro, senior judge of the United States Tax Court
|
||||
Nabiel Makarim, HIID policy analyst 1986–1989, Indonesia's State Minister of the Environment 2001–2004
|
||||
Alex Matthiessen, environmentalist
|
||||
Geoffrey Maynard, economist, British Treasury
|
||||
Basile Adjou Moumouni, Beninese physician, winner of the 1968 Presidential election, later annulled
|
||||
Arunma Oteh, director general of the Nigerian Security and Exchange Commission
|
||||
Catherine Overholt, co-developer of the Harvard Analytical Framework
|
||||
Fernando Reimers, professor of International Education
|
||||
Sócrates Rizzo, mayor of Monterrey (1989–1991) and governor of Nuevo León (1991–1996)
|
||||
Jeffrey Sachs, economist, director of the institute 1995–1999
|
||||
Soumodip Sarkar, economist and management researcher
|
||||
Andrei Shleifer, Russian American economist
|
||||
Alejandro Toledo, affiliated researcher 1991–1994, later president of Peru
|
||||
Clay G Wescott, American consultant and anti-corruption specialist
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
59
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Stapp-0.md
Normal file
59
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Stapp-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Henry Stapp"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Stapp"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:28.142922+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Henry Pierce Stapp (born March 23, 1928) is an American mathematical physicist, known for his work in quantum mechanics, particularly the development of axiomatic S-matrix theory, the proofs of strong nonlocality properties, and the place of free will in the orthodox quantum mechanics of John von Neumann. He is considered a member of the Fundamental Fysiks Group.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Biography ==
|
||||
Stapp received his PhD in particle physics at the University of California, Berkeley, under the supervision of Nobel laureates Emilio Segrè and Owen Chamberlain.
|
||||
In 1958, Stapp was invited by Wolfgang Pauli to ETH Zurich to work with him personally on basic problems in quantum mechanics. When Pauli died in December 1958, Stapp studied von Neumann's book on quantum mechanics, and on the basis of that work composed an article entitled "Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics", which was not submitted for publication; but the title became the title of his 1993 book.
|
||||
In 1969 Stapp was invited by Werner Heisenberg to work with him at the Max Planck Institute in Munich.
|
||||
In 1976 Stapp was invited by J.A. Wheeler to work with him on problems in the foundations of quantum mechanics. Dr. Stapp has published many papers pertaining to the non-local aspects of quantum mechanics and Bell's theorem, including three books.
|
||||
Stapp has worked also in a number of conventional areas of high energy physics, including analysis of the scattering of polarized protons, parity violation, and S-matrix theory.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Research ==
|
||||
Some of Stapp's work concerns the implications of quantum mechanics. He has argued for the relevance of quantum mechanics to consciousness and free will.
|
||||
Stapp favors consciousness causes collapse, the idea that quantum wave functions collapse only when they interact with consciousness as a consequence of "orthodox" quantum mechanics. He argues that quantum wave functions collapse when conscious minds select one among the alternative quantum possibilities. His hypothesis of how mind may interact with matter via quantum processes in the brain differs from that of Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff's orchestrated objective reduction. While they postulate quantum computing in the microtubules in brain neurons, Stapp postulates a more global collapse, a 'mind like' wave-function collapse that exploits certain aspects of the quantum Zeno effect within the synapses. Stapp's view of the neural correlate of attention is explained in his book, Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer (2007). Stapp has claimed that consciousness is fundamental to the universe.
|
||||
In this book he credits John von Neumann's Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (1932) with providing an orthodox quantum mechanics demonstrating mathematically the essential role of quantum physics in the mind. Stapp has taken interest in the work of Alfred North Whitehead. He has proposed what he calls a "revised Whiteheadianism". He has also written a chapter "Whiteheadian Process and Quantum Theory" (pp. 92–102) in the book Physics and Whitehead: Quantum, Process, and Experience (2003).
|
||||
His philosophy has been described as being influenced by both Heisenberg's physical realism and Bohr's idealism. A form of panpsychism Philosopher Gordon Globus noted that "Stapp unhesitatingly descends into panexperientialism". Stapp has co-authored papers with Jeffrey M. Schwartz. Schwartz has connected the work of Stapp with the concept of "mental force" and spiritual practices of Buddhism.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Reception ==
|
||||
Stapp's work has drawn criticism from scientists such as David Bourget and Danko Georgiev. Recent papers and a book by Georgiev criticize Stapp's model in two aspects: (1) The mind in Stapp's model does not have its own wavefunction or density matrix, but nevertheless can act upon the brain using projection operators. Such usage is not compatible with standard quantum mechanics because one can attach any number of ghostly minds to any point in space that act upon physical quantum systems with any projection operators. Therefore, Stapp's model does not build upon "the prevailing principles of physics", but negates them. (2) Stapp's claim that quantum Zeno effect is robust against environmental decoherence directly contradicts a basic theorem in quantum information theory according to which acting with projection operators upon the density matrix of a quantum system can never decrease the von Neumann entropy of the system, but can only increase it. Stapp has responded to Bourget and Georgiev stating that the allegations of errors are incorrect.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Selected publications ==
|
||||
Stapp, H; Schwartz, J. M; Beauregard, M. (2005). Quantum theory in neuroscience and psychology: A neurophysical model of mind-brain interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 360 (1458): 1309-1327. Full paper
|
||||
Stapp, H; Schwartz, J. M; Beauregard, M. (2004). The volitional influence of the mind on the brain, with special reference to emotional self-regulation. In Beauregard, M. (Ed.). Consciousness, emotional self-regulation, and the brain, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company, Chapter 7. ISBN 90-272-5187-8
|
||||
Stapp, H. (2009). Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics (The Frontiers Collection). Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-89653-1
|
||||
Stapp, H. (2011). Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer. Springer. ISBN 978-3-642-18075-0
|
||||
Stapp, H. (2017). Quantum Theory and Free Will: How Mental Intentions Translate into Bodily Actions. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-58301-3
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
Epistemological Letters
|
||||
Consciousness causes collapse
|
||||
Quantum mind
|
||||
Quantum Zeno effect
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Further reading ==
|
||||
Donald, M. On the Work of Henry P. Stapp.
|
||||
Streater, R. F. Quantum Theory on the Brain.
|
||||
Ludwig, K. (1995). Why the Difference Between Quantum and Classical Physics is Irrelevant to the Mind/Body Problem. Psyche 2 (16).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
List of papers by Stapp on LBNL server
|
||||
Stapp at the Chopra Foundation Archived 2014-12-09 at the Wayback Machine
|
||||
29
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirst_Prize_and_Lectureship-0.md
Normal file
29
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirst_Prize_and_Lectureship-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Hirst Prize and Lectureship"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirst_Prize_and_Lectureship"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:09.711005+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Hirst Prize and Lectureship is a biennial prize, jointly awarded by the London Mathematical Society (LMS) and the British Society for the History of Mathematics (BSHM). The prize recognises original and innovative contributions to the history of mathematics by an individual winner or by joint winners.
|
||||
The prize was first awarded in 2015 (solely by the LMS) as part of the LMS's 150th anniversary celebrations. The prize is named in honour of Thomas Archer Hirst, who was from 1872 to 1874 the fifth President of the LMS. Any mathematician or historian of mathematics is eligible for the prize — except for previous winners of the De Morgan Medal, LMS's Pólya Prize, Fröhlich Prize, Naylor Prize and Lectureship, Senior Whitehead Prize, Senior Anne Bennett Prize, or the Christopher Zeeman Medal. In the year for awarding the prize, the members of the Hirst Prize Committee, the members of the LMS and BSHM Councils are also ineligible.
|
||||
The administration of the Hirst Prize alternates between the LMS and the BSHM offices, but the LMS alone organises the Hirst Lectureship. The lecture normally takes place in the year following the award of the Hirst Prize, and the venue for the lecture is chosen by the winner (or winners) of the Hirst Prize.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Recipients ==
|
||||
2015: Edmund F. Robertson and John Joseph O'Connor (joint winners)
|
||||
2016 lecture: History of Mathematics: Some Personal Thoughts
|
||||
2018: Jeremy Gray
|
||||
2019 lecture: Jesse Douglas, Minimal Surfaces, and the first Fields Medal
|
||||
2021: Karine Chemla
|
||||
2022 lecture: Algebraic work with operations in China, 1st century—13th century
|
||||
2023: Erhard Scholz
|
||||
2024 lecture: From Grassmann complements to Hodge duality
|
||||
2025: June Barrow-Green
|
||||
2026 lecture: George Birkhoff: 'The Poincaré of America'
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Historiography of gunpowder and gun transmission"
|
||||
chunk: 1/7
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_gunpowder_and_gun_transmission"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:47.872458+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
In the history of gunpowder there are a range of theories about the transmission of the knowledge of gunpowder and guns from Imperial China to the rest of the world following the Song, Jin and Yuan dynasties. The earliest bronze guns found in China date back to the 13th century, with archaeological and textual evidence for previous nascent gunpowder technology developed beforehand. Scholars note the scarcity of records for firearms in the Middle East prior to the mid-14th century, and in Russia before the late 14th century, yet cannons already appeared in Europe by the early 14th century. This has led to theories that gunpowder or the gun was independently invented in Europe. Less accepted theories include gunpowder as being independently invented in the Middle East or South Asia.
|
||||
|
||||
== Theories of non-Chinese invention ==
|
||||
The earliest gunpowder recipe and gunpowder weapons date to China's Song dynasty and the oldest extant guns appear in the Mongol-led Yuan dynasty of China. However, historian Tonio Andrade notes that there is a surprising scarcity of reliable evidence of firearms in Iran or Central Asia prior to the late 14th century. He argues that, in the Middle East, no guns are mentioned prior to the 1360s, while Russian records do not contain reliable mentions of firearms until 1382, after the gun's arrival in western Europe, despite their closer proximity and interactions with the Mongol empires.
|
||||
|
||||
=== European origin ===
|
||||
|
||||
Although there is some evidence that points to the possible appearance of guns in Andalusia as early as the 1330s, Thomas T. Allsen says that "in the Latin West the first uncontestable evidence of firearms is from 1326, surprisingly somewhat earlier than in the lands that lie between China ... and western Europe. This has caused some doubt among historians on the gun transmission theory, and even whether or not there was a transmission at all. One dissident opinion comes from Stephen Morillo, Jeremy Black, and Paul Lococo's War in World History which argues that "the sources are not entirely clear about Chinese use of gunpowder in guns. There are references to bamboo and iron cannons, or perhaps proto-cannons, but these seem to have been small, unreliable, handheld weapons in this period. The Chinese do seem to have invented guns independently of the Europeans, at least in principle; but, in terms of effective cannon, the edge goes to Europe."
|
||||
There was a stream of thought in Europe that emerged in the early 15th century that attributed the invention of both gunpowder and the gun to a certain Berthold Schwartz (Niger Berchtoldus or "Black Berthold"). By the turn of the 16th century, the story of Black Berthold was being repeated by numerous writers. In 1605, William Camden declared:
|
||||
|
||||
Some have sayled a long course as farre as China, the farthest part of the world, to fetch the invention of guns from thence, but we know the Spanicsh proverb 'long waies, long lies'. One writeth, I know not upon whose credit, that Roger Bacon, commonly called Friar Bacon, knew how to make an engine which with saltpetre and Brimstone, should prove notable for Batterie, but he, tendering the safety of mankind, would not discover it. The best approved authors agree that guns were invented in Germanie, by Berthold Swarte, a Monke skilful in Gebers Cookery or Alchimy, who tempering Brimstone and saltpetre in a mortar, perceived the force by casting up the stone which covered it, when a sparke fell upon it....
|
||||
It is not exactly certain who Berthold was or if he ever existed as there are no contemporary records of him. Some consider him a mythical figure, used as a stand-in "for all the curious and ingenious experiments related to the new and dangerous mixture of saltpetre, sulfur (brimstone) and carbon." According to Henry Pratap Phillips, Berthold Schwartz was actually named Constantin Anchlitzen, and made gunpowder at Freiburg around the year 1330. J.R. Partington believes Schwartz is a purely legendary figure invented for the purpose of providing a German origin for gunpowder and cannon. Historian Jack Kelly concurs that Berthold was a "legendary figure" that existed to bolster German claims to the invention of the gun and to shield Europeans from the "fact that gunpowder, a critical force in their history, had emerged not from their own inventiveness."
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Historiography of gunpowder and gun transmission"
|
||||
chunk: 2/7
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_gunpowder_and_gun_transmission"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:47.872458+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Some European, especially German researchers of firearms history, believed that a German monk, Berthold Schwarz, is the inventor of gunpowder. However, there are different theories regarding various data concerning Berthold inventing gunpowder, including his last name, his nationality, his religion, the year, and location of the invention. The earliest German document mentioning him says that he was a Greek engaged in alchemy, rather than a monk. Later, there were theories saying that he was from Denmark, Prague, Cologne, Freiburg, Braunschweig, and Metz. In religious denomination, he was said by some to be a member of Franciscan faction of Christianity, and by others to be of the Dominique faction. No one can say for sure. When it comes to the year of his inventing gunpowder, there are a variety of claims, including 1,250, 1,313, 1,348, 1,354, 1,372, 1,380, and 1,393, with a difference as great as 143 years.
|
||||
The dating of Schwartz' invention of gunpowder, given by the Jesuit Athanasius Kircher as 1354, is also later than even the first usage of cannons in Europe. The chronological problem did not go unnoticed and in 1732, Hermann Boerhaave shifted the invention of gunpowder to Roger Bacon while Schwartz was relegated to the role of discovering its explosive military properties. In 1753, Peter Shaw dismissed Schwartz by pointing to European usage of cannons as early as 1338. The idea of Berthold Schwartz as the inventor of gunpowder had already begun to decline in the 17th century. Two years after writing about Schwartz' invention of gunpowder, Kircher changed his mind and said that the "invention of gunpowder, which is not possible to deny took place long before our times in China." In 1678, the commander Louis de Gaya downgraded Schwartz' status as an inventor to a mere transmitter. According to de Gaya, Schwartz obtained gunpowder, invented in China, from Tartars during his travels in Muscovy around 1380. The idea that gunpowder was a Chinese invention was not new to Europeans by then, and had been in circulation in Europe since at least the late 16th century. According to Juan de Mendoza, writing in 1585, the Chinese told the Portuguese that they had invented gunpowder, contradicting their own belief that "an Almane" had been the inventor. By the 18th century, missionary writers with access to Chinese records were convinced that gunpowder and firearms had been invented in China. While Europeans increasingly came to accept that gunpowder and other inventions such as paper, printing, and the compass had originated in China, they added an Orientalist twist to the narrative: "only rational Europeans were able to fully utilize the inventions to create the modern age, while the backward Chinese had squandered them." Belief in a European origin also never died entirely. A well known monograph on the history of artillery by Colonel Henry Hime, published in 1915, attributed the discovery of gunpowder to Roger Bacon and claimed gunpowder was brought to China from the West.
|
||||
|
||||
A deeply rooted misconception in the West holds that the Chinese never used gunpowder for war, that they employed one of the most potent inventions in the history of mankind for idle entertainment and children's whizbangs. This received wisdom is categorically false. The notion of China's benign relationship with gunpowder sprang in part from Western prejudices about the Chinese character. Some viewed the Chinese as dilettantes who stumbled onto the secret of gunpowder but couldn't envision its potential. Others saw them as pacifist sages who wisely turned away from its destructive possibilities.
|
||||
Scholars suggest that the lack of gunpowder weapons in a well-traveled Venetian's catalogue for a new crusade in 1321 implies that guns were unknown in Europe up until this point, while the earliest Latin and Arabic descriptions of purifying saltpeter, a key ingredient in gunpowder, does not appear until the 13th century, seven centuries after the Chinese. Others have tried to extrapolate ancient mentions of producing thunder as proof of gunpowder, but invariably run into problems with dating, anachronisms, and interpolations, leading modern arms historians to conclude that true gunpowder was unknown in Europe before the 13th century.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Islamic origin ===
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Historiography of gunpowder and gun transmission"
|
||||
chunk: 3/7
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_gunpowder_and_gun_transmission"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:47.872458+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
There is an independent invention theory supporting an Islamic origin of the gun, citing the Mamluk deployment of hand cannons in 1260 and a passage by Ibn Khaldun on the Marinid Siege of Sijilmassa in 1274: "[The Sultan] installed siege engines ... and gunpowder engines ..., which project small balls of iron. These balls are ejected from a chamber ... placed in front of a kindling fire of gunpowder; this happens by a strange property which attributes all actions to the power of the Creator." The passage, dated to 1382, and its interpretation has been rejected as anachronistic by most historians, who urge caution regarding claims of Islamic firearms use in the 1204–1324 period as late medieval Arabic texts used the same word for gunpowder, naft, as they did for an earlier incendiary, naphtha. Needham believes Ibn Khaldun was speaking of fire lances or proto-guns rather than hand cannon.
|
||||
Historian Ahmad Y. al-Hassan, based on his analysis of 14th-century Arabic manuscripts which he argues to be copies of earlier texts, claims that hand cannons were used at the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260. However Hassan's claims have been refuted by other historians such as David Ayalon, Iqtidar Alam Khan, Joseph Needham, Tonio Andrade, and Gabor Ágoston. Khan argues that it was the Mongols who introduced gunpowder to the Islamic world, and believes cannons only reached Mamluk Egypt in the 1370s. According to Needham, fire lances or proto-guns were known to Muslims by the late 13th century and early 14th century. However the term midfa, dated to textual sources from 1342 to 1352, cannot be proven to be true hand-guns or bombards, and contemporary accounts of a metal-barrel cannon in the Islamic world do not occur until 1365. Needham also concludes that in its original form the term midfa refers to the tube or cylinder of a naphtha projector (flamethrower), then after the invention of gunpowder it meant the tube of fire lances, and eventually it applied to the cylinder of hand-gun and cannon. Similarly, Andrade dates the textual appearance of cannon in middle eastern sources to the 1360s. Gabor Ágoston and David Ayalon believe the Mamluks had certainly used siege cannon by the 1360s, but earlier uses of cannon in the Islamic World are vague with a possible appearance in the Emirate of Granada by the 1320s, however evidence is inconclusive.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Indian origin ===
|
||||
|
||||
The idea that that ancient Hindus had knowledge of gunpowder traces back to two 18th century authors: N.B. Halhed and Q. Craufurd. Halhed's Persian translation of a Sanskrit digest of laws, Code of Gentoo Laws (1776), translates agni-astra as "firearms" or "fire-arrow discharged from bamboo," and sataghni, which literally means "hundred-killer" as "cannon." Craufurd's text published in 1790 thought the old Hindus used gunpowder but was doubtful of their use before Europeans. In 1848, Professor Wilson, Director of the Asiatic Society at Calcutta, wrote that Indians were well acquainted with gunpowder and that rockets were an Indian invention. According to H.M. Elliot's The History of India as Told by its own Historians (1875), saltpetre may have possibly been used in explosives mentioned in the Ramayana and Sri Bhagavat.
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Historiography of gunpowder and gun transmission"
|
||||
chunk: 4/7
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_gunpowder_and_gun_transmission"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:47.872458+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
There is no clear proof that gunpowder and rockets were known in any other country earlier than in China. J. Dubois (1765-1848) maintained that rockets were invented in India as early as 300 BCE, on the grounds that the ancient Sanskrit classic, the Rāmāyaṇa, spoke of vāṇa or bāṇa, which was at one time thought to mean 'rocket'. W. Egerton regarded the agnyastra of the Vedic Hymns as a type of rocket. Further examination of the Rāmayaṇa shows, however, that the term vāṇa or bāṇa simply means an arrow shot from a bow'.
|
||||
In 1880, Gustav Oppert claimed that the oldest documents describing gunpowder were the Sanskrit texts Sukraniti and Nitiprakasika. The Sukraniti contains descriptions of firearms and a formula for agni-curna (fire-powder) or 'suvarcilavana' (well-shining salt) very similar to that mentioned the Wujing Zongyao: 5 parts saltpetre, 1 part sulphur, and 1 part charcoal. The two firearms mentioned in the Sukraniti are a musket and a cart-drawn gun. There are no definite dates for these works despite claims of their antiquity. Oppert uses archaeological evidence from the ancient temple carvings in India, where soldiers are depicted carrying or in some cases firing the firearms, as proof of ancient use of firearms. Most of these temples are not older than 500 years except Tirupallani temple. However he claims the use of firearms in Sukraniti as authentic and the use of firearms and gunpowder in India since the ancient Vedic period (1500–500 BCE).
|
||||
The ingredients listed in Sukraniti as constituents for gunpowder such as realgar, opiment, lac, camphor, indigo, pine gum, magnetic oxide of iron, vermillion, graphite are used in the manufacture of incendiary weapons in Arthashastra and also appear in Chinese accounts.
|
||||
The Arthashastra lists recipes for explosive and inflammable powder called 'agnisamyogas' or 'agniyoga' which J.R. Partington notes are very similar to gunpowder recipes quoted in Chinese, Arabic and European texts. However they do not contain saltpetre. A. Kalyanamaran argues that sulphur was not needed to create gunpowder and nitre could be obtained from fermented dung mentioned in the ingredients. The Greek historian Philostratos cites a letter written by Alexander saying that the reason why the Greek army refrained from advancing from Hydaspis to Ganges was because of the frightful dangers it encountered when people of Oxydraces threw flaming thunderbolts from the top of their forts. H. Wilkinson, who also believes Greek Fire was first discovered by the Indians, considers this as the earliest evidence of gunpowder in the world. According to J. Backman, gunpowder was invented in India and brought to Europe by Muslims. A device in the Arthashastra called ulka is used as a shower of firebrand which makes a thunder sound (or noise of drumming) in the sky which according to the Arthashastra is used by astrologists to show it to the enemy subjects on the day of their birth star. Authors such as A 7th century Chinese text mentions that people in northwest India were familiar with saltpetre and used it to produce purple flames.
|
||||
Nitisara, variously dated between 4th century BCE – 6th century CE, is a treatise by a Buddhist scholar named Kamandaka mentions gunfiring (nalikadibhdi) and states that the bodyguards of the king should rouse him with gun-firing if he indulges in girls, drinks, bouts etc. The gun firing was probably shotless military pyrotechnic using tubular weapons (although Oppert states that another word 'Nadika'' is also used in one of the text's version and may well mean gongs).
|
||||
Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi mentions in a treaties dated 910 a material called 'Indian salt', which he describes as "black and friable, with very little glitter," which has been interpreted as saltpetre by Berthelot but this is disputed by Joseph Needham. According to Firishta, Mehmud Ghaznavi (r. 999–1030) employed 1,008 cannon (top) and muskets (tufang) during his battle of Peshawar with Kabul Shahi king Anandapal. In a text called Mujmalut Tawarikh dated to 1126 which was translated from Arabic which itself was based on an original Sanskrit work, some type of grenade shaped like a terracotta elephant with a fuse is mentioned which was placed in the army van and when the invading army drew near, it exploded and the flames destroyed great portion of that army.
|
||||
|
||||
Many western military and arms historians, as well as some Indian scholars, have cast doubts on the authenticity of the Sukraniti, mainly for two reasons. First, this work could not be dated with reasonable certainty and, second, the descriptions of gunpowder and firearms given in it appear to be far too advanced for the period to which this work is generally assigned. A few scholars are also of the opinion that the entire book is a clever piece of forgery.
|
||||
According to Henry Pratap Phillips, some content in the Sanskrit works resemble that found in the Wujing Zongyao and it is possible that it was borrowed from the latter. However he believes it is the opposite and the gunpowder formula in the Wujing Zongyao came from the Sukraniti. Phillips and Oppert both consider The Rajalakshminarayana Hradaya, which Oppert dates to a "very remote period," as proof of ancient Indian knowledge of gunpowder since it mentions charcoal, sulphur, and other materials in the preparation of fire. The lack of saltpetre is explained by Phillips as a conscious omission for the sake of secrecy.
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Historiography of gunpowder and gun transmission"
|
||||
chunk: 5/7
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_gunpowder_and_gun_transmission"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:47.872458+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Chinese texts are usually fairly precisely dated, whilst Indian works are often not. This difficulty must not be allowed to impair the interest or value of Indian works, but they must also be examined from the point of view of their scientific and technical contents with due care and with a suitably critical attitude. I feel that Oppert's treatment does not satisfy this requirement.
|
||||
J.R. Partington rejected Oppert's claims in his A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder. Partington believes that the sataghni mentioned in Sanskrit text was an iron-mace rather than a cannon while Joseph Needham is of the opinion that its translation as cannon cannot be sustained. The word for cannon, nalika, does not appear in any Sanskrit dictionary, and the source of Sukraniti is the mythical Sukracharya. There is also no classical Sanskrit word for saltpetre while shoraka in late Sanskrit is derived from Persian. Rajendralal Mitra raised doubts about the age of another work by Usanas, Nitisara of Sukracharya, noting that it contains descriptions of firearms as they were a hundred years ago. In Partington's opinion the work is legendary. In 1902, P.C. Ray raised doubts about the authenticity of textual evidence supporting ancient Hindu knowledge of gunpowder. Ray pointed out that the gunpowder mixture of 4:1:1 saltpetre, charcoal, and sulphur found in Sukraniti was the most efficient for guns and was not known in Europe until the 16th century, leading him to believe that the content was an interpolation by "the handiwork of some charlatan." P.K. Gode provided textual evidence that pyrotechnical recipes recorded in the Sanskrit treatise, Kautukacintamani, were copied from a Chinese source. Some scholars based on the fact that it mentions matchlock firearms date the text to the modern period. Similarly H.L. Blackmore wrote in 1965 that Oppert's theories were absurd and no proper attempt to date the sources had been made. H.W.L. Hime goes as far as to say that "early Indian gunpowder is definitely a fiction" while Partington calls it a "legend." According to Kaushik Roy, the ancient and medieval Indians used saltpetre for incendiary devices but not for gunpowder.
|
||||
|
||||
== Arguments for and against Chinese transmission ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Transmission theory ===
|
||||
According to Tonio Andrade, the nature and etymology of gunpowder in Europe intrinsically favor of the transmission theory rather than an independent invention. While records of gunpowder weapons and their evolution into the gun exist in China, "there are no records of any such developments in Europe," and the arrival of the gun in Europe was such that it "appears fully formed around 1326." There are also older and more numerous formulas of gunpowder using a variety of different proportions of key ingredients – saltpeter, sulphur, and charcoal – which he believes is proof of its evolution and experimentation in China, where gunpowder was first applied to warfare as an incendiary, then explosive, and finally as a propellant. In contrast gunpowder formulas in Europe appear both later and offer very little divergence from the already ideal proportions for the purpose of creating an explosive and propellant powder. Kelly DeVries points out the idea that European records contained zero evidence of gunpowder developments is not strictly true, as compilers of early gunpowder recipes in Europe understood that should the instrument carrying gunpowder be enclosed on one end, the gunpowder reaction inside would produce "flying fire."
|
||||
Another facet of the gunpowder transmission theory is the appearance of gunpowder in Europe ready made for military usage, and is generally referred to as gunpowder rather than a civilian term such as the Chinese "fire-drug," which suggests an originally non-military usage, whereas in Europe it was almost immediately and exclusively used for its military qualities. Muslim terms of saltpeter may also point toward a gunpowder transmission, if not the gun itself, as an Andalusian botanist referred to it as "Chinese snow," while in Persia it was called "Chinese salt." Joseph Needham claims that "all the long preparations and tentative experiments were made in China, and everything came to Islam and the West fully fledged, whether it was the fire-lance or the explosive bomb, the rocket or the metal-barrel hand-gun and bombard." However, theories of European, Islamic, and Indian origins for the gun and gunpowder still persist today in tandem with the transmission theory.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Mongol vector ===
|
||||
Proponents of China as the inventor of gunpowder and the gun emphasize the older history of gunpowder evolution as attested by historical records and archaeological samples in China, its less obviously militarily focused name as "fire medicine," the Mongol role as a catalyst in disseminating gunpowder technology, and criticizes the scant or absent evidence of prior experimentation with gunpowder in Europe for non-military purposes before the arrival of the gun. However, there are still several blanks in the history of a gun transmission theory and the questions they raise which its proponents have been unable to answer. The rapid spread of guns across Eurasia, only 50 years from China to Europe, with non-existent evidence of its route from one extreme of the continent to the other, remains a mystery. Other Chinese inventions such as the compass, paper, and printing took centuries to reach Europe, with events such as the Battle of Talas as perhaps a possible takeoff point for discussion. No such event exists on record for either gunpowder or the gun. There is simply no clear route of transmission, and while the Mongols are often pointed to as the likeliest vector, Timothy May points out that "there is no concrete evidence that the Mongols used gunpowder weapons on a regular basis outside of China." According to Kate Raphael, the list of Chinese specialists recruited by Genghis Khan and Hulagu provided by the History of Yuan includes only carpenters and blacksmiths, but no gunpowder workers. A conclusion most military historians in the transmission camp have come to is that the rapid diffusion of gunpowder and the gun is probably best explained by its clear military applications.
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Historiography of gunpowder and gun transmission"
|
||||
chunk: 6/7
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_gunpowder_and_gun_transmission"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:47.872458+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Although the spread of gunpowder is directly related to the rise of the Mongols and the Pax Mongolica, it is unclear whether the Mongols themselves contributed to the spread. Some historians have claimed the Mongols used gunpowder weapons, essentially bombs hurled by catapults, in the Middle East and perhaps Eastern Europe; unfortunately there is no definite documentary or archaeological evidence to confirm it. Considering the Mongols rarely met a weapon they did not like, we can be certain that if they found a way to transport it safely it would have been incorporated into their arsenal outside China. Nonetheless, it remains speculation... However... the Mongols used it in their wars against the Jin, the Song and in their invasions of Japan.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Independent invention theory ===
|
||||
Opponents of the transmission theory criticize the vagueness of Chinese records on the specific usage of gunpowder in weaponry, the existence of gunpowder or possibly lack thereof in incendiary weapons as described by Chinese documents, the weakness of Chinese firearms, the non-existent route of diffusion or evidence of guns between Europe and China before 1326, and emphasize the independent evolution of superior guns in Europe. However, this line of thought is problematic for a number of reasons. Notably, there is an acute dearth of any significant evidence of evolution or experimentation with gunpowder or gunpowder weapons leading up to the gun in 1326, which can be found in China. Gunpowder appeared in Europe primed for military usage as an explosive and propellant, bypassing a process which took centuries of Chinese experimentation with gunpowder weaponry to reach, making a nearly instantaneous and seamless transition into gun warfare, as its name suggests. Furthermore, early European gunpowder recipes shared identical defects with Chinese recipes such as the inclusion of the poisons sal ammoniac and arsenic, which provide no benefit to gunpowder. Bert S. Hall explains this phenomenon in his Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology, and Tactics by drawing upon the gunpowder transmission theory, explaining that "gunpowder came [to Europe], not as an ancient mystery, but as a well-developed modern technology, in a manner very much like twentieth-century 'technology-transfer' projects." In a similar vein Peter Lorge supposes that the Europeans experienced gunpowder "free from preconceived notions of what could be done," in contrast to China, "where a wide range of formulas and a broad variety of weapons demonstrated the full range of possibilities and limitations of the technologies involved." There is also the vestige of Chinese influence, and not European, on Muslim terminology of some gunpowder related items such as saltpeter, which has been described as either Chinese snow or salt, fireworks which were called Chinese flowers, and rockets which were called Chinese arrows. Moreover, Europeans in particular experienced great difficulty in obtaining saltpeter, a primary ingredient of gunpowder which was relatively scarce in Europe compared to China, and had to be obtained from "distant lands or extracted at high cost from soil rich in dung and urine." Thomas Arnold believes that the similarities between early European cannons and contemporary Chinese models suggests a direct transmission of cannon making knowledge from China rather than a home grown development. Whatever the truth may be, the first unambiguous references to guns appeared in Europe in the 1320s.
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Historiography of gunpowder and gun transmission"
|
||||
chunk: 7/7
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_gunpowder_and_gun_transmission"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:47.872458+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
== Bibliography ==
|
||||
Ágoston, Gábor (2005), Guns for the Sultan: Military Power and the Weapons Industry in the Ottoman Empire, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-60391-1
|
||||
Andrade, Tonio (2016), The Gunpowder Age: China, Military Innovation, and the Rise of the West in World History, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0-691-13597-7.
|
||||
Arnold, Thomas (2001), The Renaissance at War, Cassell & Co, ISBN 978-0-304-35270-8
|
||||
Bachrach, David Stewart (July 2008). "Review of Gunpowder, Explosives and the State: A Technological History". Technology and Culture. 49 (3). Aldershot: Ashgate: 785–786. doi:10.1353/tech.0.0051. S2CID 111173101.
|
||||
Buchanan, Brenda J. (2006), Gunpowder, Explosives and the State: A Technological History, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-7546-5259-5
|
||||
Chase, Kenneth (2003), Firearms: A Global History to 1700, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-82274-9.
|
||||
Cressy, David (2013), Saltpeter: The Mother of Gunpowder, Oxford University Press
|
||||
Kalyanaraman, A. (1903). The Saga Of The Indo-aryans.
|
||||
Kelly, Jack (2004), Gunpowder: Alchemy, Bombards, & Pyrotechnics: The History of the Explosive that Changed the World, Basic Books, ISBN 978-0-465-03718-6.
|
||||
Khan, Iqtidar Alam (1996). "Coming of Gunpowder to the Islamic World and North India: Spotlight on the Role of the Mongols". Journal of Asian History. 30: 41–45.
|
||||
Khan, Iqtidar Alam (2004), Gunpowder and Firearms: Warfare in Medieval India, Oxford University Press
|
||||
Khan, Iqtidar Alam (2008), Historical Dictionary of Medieval India, The Scarecrow Press, Inc., ISBN 978-0-8108-5503-8
|
||||
Liang, Jieming (2006), Chinese Siege Warfare: Mechanical Artillery & Siege Weapons of Antiquity, Singapore, Republic of Singapore: Leong Kit Meng, ISBN 978-981-05-5380-7
|
||||
Lorge, Peter (2005), Warfare in China to 1600, Routledge
|
||||
Lorge, Peter A. (2008), The Asian Military Revolution: from Gunpowder to the Bomb, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-60954-8
|
||||
Lu, Yongxiang (2015), A History of Chinese Science and Technology 2
|
||||
May, Timothy (2012), The Mongol Conquests in World History, Reaktion Books
|
||||
Morillo, Stephen (2008), War in World History: Society, Technology, and War from Ancient Times to the Present, Volume 1, To 1500, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 978-0-07-052584-9
|
||||
Needham, Joseph (1971), Science & Civilization in China: Volume 4 Part 3, Cambridge University Press
|
||||
Needham, Joseph (1980), Science & Civilisation in China: Volume 5 Part 4, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-08573-1
|
||||
Needham, Joseph (1986). Science & Civilisation in China: Volume 5, Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Part 7, Military Technology: The Gunpowder Epic. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-30358-3.
|
||||
Oppert, Gustav Salomon (1880). On the weapons, army organisation, and political maxims of the ancient Hindus, with special reference to gunpowder and firearms. Albrecht Weber; Lakshmīkānta Varmā; Śukra.; Vaiśaṃpāyana. Madras: Higginbotham.
|
||||
Partington, J.R. (1999), A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, ISBN 978-0-8018-5954-0
|
||||
Phillips, Henry Prataps (2016), The History and Chronology of Gunpowder and Gunpowder Weapons (c.1000 to 1850), Notion Press, ISBN 9789352067633
|
||||
Purton, Peter (2010), A History of the Late Medieval Siege, 1200–1500, Boydell Press, ISBN 978-1-84383-449-6
|
||||
Raphael, Kate (2011). Muslim fortresses in the Levant: between Crusaders and Mongols. Culture and civilization in the Middle East. Vol. 23. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-4155-6925-5.
|
||||
Roy, Kaushik (2014). Military Transition in Early Modern Asia, 1400–1750. London: Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-7809-3765-6.
|
||||
28
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_science-0.md
Normal file
28
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_science-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Historiography of science"
|
||||
chunk: 1/5
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_science"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:32.266326+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The historiography of science is the study of the history and methodology of the sub-discipline of history known as the history of science, including its disciplinary aspects and practices (methods, theories, schools), and controversies. Its subject is the variety of ways that science's past has been written about.
|
||||
The earliest histories of science were written by scientists largely as celebrations of scientific progress. Scholars in the 19th and early 20th century frequently treated the history and philosophy of science as a single scholarly undertaking but the fields began to diverge under the influence of logical positivism, which demarcated scientific justification as the proper concern of philosophy, leaving scientific discovery to the historians.
|
||||
The increasing professionalization of science history (i.e. the emergence of "history of science" as an independent field) in the 20th century and the entry of sociologists into the field caused friction with scientists and "practitioner" historians (practicing or retired scientists writing about their own fields). The divide has often centered on a disagreement over whether the history of science should be an accounting of scientific progress or a critical analysis of science as a cultural activity, a split in point-of-view that has been both exacerbated and reinforced by a wider cultural fracturing between the sciences and the humanities in the 20th century. Since the history of science requires a difficult intellectual "bilingualism" that straddles science and history, the polarization of the surrounding culture remains an inherent, and ongoing, challenge for the field.
|
||||
Disagreement between scientists and non-scientists writing about the history of science reached a climax during the "science wars" of the 1990s when prominent scientists criticized sociologists and historians for ignoring the objective reality of nature in favor of political explanations when writing science history. Some science historians have acknowledged the reality of the divide but also argued that it can be bridged by scholars who are trained as both scientists and historians.
|
||||
|
||||
== Scientists ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Narratives of progress ===
|
||||
|
||||
General historians have, historically, been inclined to leave the history of science to specialists. The first histories of science, in the 18th century, were instead written by Enlightenment-era scientists like Jean-Étienne Montucla (1725-1799),, Jean Le Rond d'Alembert (1717-1783) and Joseph Priestley (1733-1804) who generally saw history as a pedagogic tool for celebrating the progress of human reason and/or as a narrative of a linear and progressive march toward the superior knowledge of the present. Biographies of scientists were also popular in the 19th century, helping to amplify Newton's reputation as both a scientific genius and national hero in Great Britain. By the mid-20th century, however, historians specializing in the history of science began to disparage these earlier efforts. In particular, they criticized "practitioner" (i.e. scientist) historians for systematically neglecting primary sources, failing to truly understand those sources when they didn't neglect them, being oblivious to the social (i.e. "external") context of science and favoring hagiographic stories of scientist-heroes and their myopic, misguided and/or prejudiced adversaries.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Science wars ===
|
||||
|
||||
While most scientists writing history of science have tended to favor an internalist approach, the Soviet physicist Boris Hessen (1893-1936) was a notable exception, arguing that even Newton’s physics was a direct product of the economic needs of 17th-century British capitalism. Hessen’s externalist approach gained momentum over the following decades as sociologists entered the field, but it also eventually sparked a backlash from scientists and philosophers in the 1990s who fiercely criticized sociologists and externalist historians for ignoring the objective reality of nature and for their position that the history of science should be written without regard for whether the theories involved were actually correct. The "frenzied confrontations" of this conflict - later known as the science wars - were escalated by the book Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science by the biologist Paul R. Gross and the mathematician Norman Levitt (1943-2009). The term itself was coined for a special 1996 issue of Social Text, a Duke University Press publication of postmodern critical theory, that featured multiple articles emphasizing the social construction of science. The dispute gained significant media interest because of the Sokal hoax, which generated unusually wide public interest and transformed what had been a specialized academic debate over the nature of truth and the boundaries of scientific authority into a broader public controversy.
|
||||
|
||||
== Philosophers ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Methods and justifications ===
|
||||
30
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_science-1.md
Normal file
30
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_science-1.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Historiography of science"
|
||||
chunk: 2/5
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_science"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:32.266326+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The origins of the philosophy of science as a field of inquiry distinct from epistemology extend back to Francis Bacon's (1561-1626) Novum Organum ("true directions concerning the interpretation of nature") and René Descartes' (1596-1650) Discourse on Method (full title: "Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences") and then continue with the 2nd edition of Isaac Newton's (1643-1727) Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica and David Hume's (1711-1776) An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding in the 18th century.
|
||||
19th-century scholars, including the philosopher and mathematician (and "father of sociology") Auguste Comte (1798-1857) and the physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach (1838-1916), frequently treated the history and philosophy of science as a single scholarly undertaking where the study of what science had been (its history) and what science ought to be (its methods and justifications) were productively intermingled. Comte and Mach were associated with the philosophical school of positivism, which also advanced ideas for the reform of history generally. "Historical" positivists argued that historians should pursue the objective truth of the past by allowing historical sources to "speak for themselves", without additional interpretation. The heavy emphasis placed by historical positivists on documentary sources led to the development of methods of source criticism, which seek to expunge bias and uncover original sources in their pristine state.
|
||||
Under the influence of logical positivism in the early 20th century, the fields of philosophy of science and history of science began to separate. The philosopher of science Hans Reichenbach (1891-1953) introduced a distinction between the "context of discovery" (e.g. how scientists come up with ideas) and the "context of justification" (i.e. how those ideas are justified). The latter was demarcated as the proper domain of philosophy while the former was assigned to the attention of historians who, "chary about using the historical record to address...questions...about the justification of science", agreed to the divorce.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Paradigms ===
|
||||
|
||||
Although most contemporary science historians now completely eschew philosophy a small, but influential, handful of scholars emerged in the 1960s to challenge the increasing separation of the history of science from the philosophy of science. In the "hyper-influential" The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the historian and philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) introduced the idea of "paradigm shift" in science, which is a fundamental change in the basic concepts and experimental practices of a scientific discipline. Kuhn wrote that while a given paradigm shift in science might occur for rational (or philosophic) reasons, at other times the shift happens for reasons that may have little to do with the objective merits of the science involved. By emphasizing the sociological nature of at least some paradigm shifts, however, Structure had the effect of distancing the history of science even further from philosophy. While Kuhn viewed himself as a philosopher-historian, the ironic impact of Structure was to even further exile philosophical questions from the practice of the history of science.
|
||||
The philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend (1924-1994) argued that scientific knowledge is not cumulative or progressive and that there can be no demarcation in terms of method between science and any other form of investigation The philosopher of science Gerd Buchdahl (1914-2001) wrote that Kuhn and Joseph Agassi (1927-2023) had demonstrated that historiographical views greatly influence the writing of the history of science. In Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems (1971), the philosopher of science Jerome Ravetz's (1929-) referred to the role of the scientific community, as a social construct, in accepting or rejecting (objective) scientific knowledge.
|
||||
|
||||
== Historians ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Professionalization ===
|
||||
|
||||
From its modest beginnings early in the century, the history of science became firmly institutionalized between the 1950s and 1970s through a rapid expansion of academic programs and departments. I. Bernard Cohen (1914-2003) was the first person to receive a PhD in the History of Science in the United States in 1947 but, by the 1970s, scores of PhDs were being awarded each year in the U.S. By the end of the century, the history of science possessed all the institutional paraphernalia of a mature discipline, including a panoply of professional associations, specialized journals, conferences and awards, even if its dedicated university departments remained fewer and smaller than those of more established disciplines.
|
||||
Cohen received his undergraduate degree in mathematics before becoming a graduate student in the history of science. He considered the completion of the first completely new translation into English in almost two centuries of Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica to be his most important work. Other members of the first generation of professional historians of science followed a similar professional path (i.e. training first in the sciences). Alistair Crombie (1915–1996) earned a PhD in biology and zoology and worked for several years as a zoologist before pivoting to history. Charles Gillispie (1918–2015), who graduated with a degree in chemistry before earning his PhD in history, was the main editor of the massive (20 volume) Dictionary of Scientific Biography.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Whig history ===
|
||||
|
||||
The historian and philosopher of history Herbert Butterfield (1900-1979) published The Whig Interpretation of History in 1931, a book which would later come to have an enormous impact on science historians. Butterfield invented the label of "whig history" for historical narratives which interpret past events in terms of the present.
|
||||
Butterfield argued that writing history as a narrative of progress leads to the mistaken belief that the progressive sequence of events is "a line of causation", tempting the historian to go no further to investigate the causes of historical change. The focus on the present can also lead the historian to a special kind of "abridgement", selecting only those events that seem important from the present point of view or which serve the purposes of creating a narrative with "drama and apparent moral clarity". He also criticised it for modernising the past:
|
||||
35
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_science-2.md
Normal file
35
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_science-2.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Historiography of science"
|
||||
chunk: 3/5
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_science"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:32.266326+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
...the result [of whig history] is that to many of us [historical figures] seem much more modern than they really were, and even when we have corrected this impression by closer study we find it difficult to keep in mind the differences between their world and ours.
|
||||
Whig history also easily lends itself to a view of history that is populated by heroes on the side of progress (or some other cherished modern value) while their confused or misguided opponents are portrayed, at best, as a "dummy that acts as a better foil to the grand whig virtues".
|
||||
In place of a view of history as following some sort of inevitable or structural pattern, Butterfield urged historians to pay attention to the accidental and contingent nature of historical events and "to evoke a certain sensibility towards the past, the sensibility which studies the past 'for the sake of the past', which delights in the concrete and the complex, which 'goes out to meet the past', which searches for 'unlikenesses between past and present'".
|
||||
|
||||
=== Specialization ===
|
||||
Influenced by Butterfield, many of the professionalizing mid 20th-century historians of science saw the entire previous history of the history of science, written primarily by scientists, as a sustained centuries-long exercise in whiggism:
|
||||
|
||||
By the mid-1970s, it had become commonplace among historians of science to employ the terms "Whig" and "Whiggish", often accompanied by one or more of "hagiographic", "internalist", "triumphalist", even "positivist", to denigrate grand narratives of scientific progress....post-WWII champions of the newly professionalized history of science...were out to establish a critical distance between the history of science and the teaching and promotion of the sciences. In particular, they were suspicious of the grand celebratory and didactic narratives of scientific discovery and progress...
|
||||
|
||||
The professionalization of the history of science has been accompanied by a prodigious and proliferating specialization, with the field seeming to strive to match the protean diversity of modern science itself. Butterfield called such specialization "technical history", and he said it was the counterpart to "abridged" (whig) history. As the historian Roy Porter notes, "in specialization lies safety" (from whiggism). By restricting their inquiries to extremely specific and/or highly technical niches and producing micro-studies, science historians are almost guaranteed to make themselves invulnerable to charges of whiggism. But some observers, including Porter, warn that this defensive strategy may have a cost:
|
||||
|
||||
...there are dangers too in the alternatives to Whig history. On the one hand looms the prospect of overspecialisation, narrowness and fragmentation. Few general historians are any longer prepared to chance their arm at writing the histories of whole societies over spans of centuries; and historians of science have caught the same disease. Even at the level of student textbooks, professional historians of science have ceased to write synoptic histories of science.
|
||||
The historian William Cronon insists that "[a]bridgement - and with it, by Butterfield’s own argument, whiggish history - is inescapable":
|
||||
|
||||
...without abridgement, there can be no history. Historians distill the nearly infinite records of the past in order to impose some semblance of order on what would otherwise feel like overwhelming chaos. This is all the more true when they seek to write for audiences other than their colleagues, whose patience for historical technicalities far surpasses that of the public. And because nonhistorians often do want to know how history relates to their own lives, there is no evading their demand for narratives that show how the present did indeed emerge from the past...Whenever historians seek to make their knowledge accessible to a wider world - whether in books, classrooms, museums, videos, websites, or blogs - they unfailingly abridge, simplify, analyze, synthesize, dramatize, and render judgments about why things happened as they did in the past, and why people should still care today.
|
||||
Cronon says that "historians exist to explain the past to the present" and notes that Butterfield's own history of the Scientific Revolution "would seem to partake of at least a little whiggishness itself."
|
||||
|
||||
== Sociologists ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Constructionism ===
|
||||
|
||||
While earlier scholars had advocated to a greater or lesser extent for the importance of considering external (i.e. outside of science) and/or non-empirical and non-rational social factors when trying to explain when or where science happens, the emergence of Sociology of Scientific Knowledge ("SSK") in the 1970s extended, amplified and intensified the earlier debate by wholly embracing externalist explanations related to the social organization of scientific activity and arguing that scientific knowledge has no special epistemological status compared to ordinary, non-scientific knowledge:
|
||||
|
||||
......what counts as knowledge in most social contexts it is tempting to call "customarily accepted belief". It is sustained by consensus and authority much as custom is sustained. It is developed and modified collectively, much as custom is developed and modified. This we might call the standard sociological conception of knowledge, the conception which both inspires and is confirmed by most of the empirical studies of knowledge undertaken in the social sciences. On inductive grounds one might expect this standard, widely applicable conception to make good sense of scientific knowledge and of the distinctions between knowledge and mere belief sustained and enforced by natural scientists. And so indeed it does. Scientific knowledge assimilates to the standard conception very readily, and much of profound importance can be discerned and understood when science is analysed in this way. But this is something that has only readily been acknowledged and accepted over the last two decades, and even now a sociological conception of scientific knowledge is still vigorously challenged and opposed...
|
||||
While SSK-influenced sociologists do not deny the existence of "the real world", they do argue that reality is not "determinative" of what scientists believe. Instead these sociologists see science as "just another form of culture, rather than...something special and set apart" and scientific knowledge as something that is constructed rather than discovered.
|
||||
42
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_science-3.md
Normal file
42
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_science-3.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Historiography of science"
|
||||
chunk: 4/5
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_science"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:32.266326+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
=== Science of sociology ===
|
||||
Just as sociologists have turned a skeptical eye on science, many scientists have returned the favor, accusing sociologists of deep ignorance about and hostility towards the field they are purporting to study, and a multi-generational intellectual laziness and complacency that has left their entire field unequipped to offer anything more than a primitive caricature of the vast intellectual landscape they have never bothered to map.
|
||||
|
||||
== Terminology ==
|
||||
As early as the eleventh edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (1910-1911), the word "science" had acquired an extremely broad meaning in English:
|
||||
|
||||
...science may be defined as ordered knowledge of natural phenomena and of the relations between them...The beginnings of physical science are to be sought in the slow and unconscious observation by primitive races of men of natural occurrences, such as the apparent movements of the heavenly bodies...
|
||||
|
||||
More recently, the historian of computing R. Anthony Hyman (1928-2011) has warned against inappropriate use of the word "science":
|
||||
|
||||
One may be reasonably clear what "science" means in the 19th century and most of the 18th century. In the 17th century "science" has very different meaning. Chemistry, for example, was then inextricably mixed up with alchemy. Before the 17th century dissecting out such a thing as "science" in anything like the modern sense of the term involves profound distortions.
|
||||
|
||||
Similarly, the historian Scott Hendrix has argued that the word "science" as it is used by 21st century English speakers means modern science and that the use of the word to describe pre-modern scholars is misleading. "[E]ven an astute reader is prompted to classify intellectual exercises of the past as 'scientific'...based upon how closely those activities appear to mirror the activities of a modern scientist." Noting that natural philosophy was a far more neutral term than "science", Hendrix recommended that term be used instead when discussing pre-modern scholars of the natural world. "[T]here are sound reasons for a return to the use of the term natural philosophy that, for all its imprecision, reveals rather than imposes meaning on the past."
|
||||
Confusion about the meaning of the word "science" has encouraged charges of "Eurocentrism" and complaints that the contributions of non-European civilizations to human knowledge of the natural world - Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Arabic, Indian, and Chinese - have been marginalized.
|
||||
The science historian Hendrik Floris Cohen proposed using the term nature-knowledge (natuurkennis in Dutch) as a more neutral term than either natural philosophy or science to describe the highly diverse approaches to understanding the natural world undertaken by different cultures:
|
||||
|
||||
Instead, the unit of analysis I have in the end found myself working with is modes of nature-knowledge. By this I mean consistent ranges of distinct approaches to natural phenomena, which may differ in several dimensions. Their scope may have been comprehensive, with a view to deriving the whole wide world from first principles, or deliberately partial. The way in which knowledge was attained may have been predominantly empiricist or chiefly intellectualist. If any practices went with a given mode of nature-knowledge, these may have been observational, experimental, instrumental, etc. Knowledge may have been sought for its own sake or with a view to achieving certain practical improvements. Exchange may or may not have taken place between practitioners of distinct modes of nature-knowledge that were pursued at the same time and place.
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
The History and Present State of Electricity (1767)
|
||||
Heroic theory of invention and scientific development
|
||||
Isis (journal)
|
||||
History of Science (journal)
|
||||
The British Journal for the History of Science
|
||||
James B. Conant
|
||||
History of Science Society
|
||||
Professionalization and institutionalization of history
|
||||
Metascience
|
||||
Sociology of the history of science
|
||||
Strong programme
|
||||
|
||||
== Citations ==
|
||||
43
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_science-4.md
Normal file
43
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_science-4.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Historiography of science"
|
||||
chunk: 5/5
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_science"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:32.266326+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
Agassi, Joseph. Towards an Historiography of Science Wesleyan University Press. 1963
|
||||
Bennett, J. A. (1997). "Museums and the Establishment of the History of Science at Oxford and Cambridge". British Journal for the History of Science. 30 (104 Pt 1): 29–46. doi:10.1017/s0007087496002889. PMID 11618881. S2CID 5697866.
|
||||
Bowler, Peter J; Morus, Iwan Rhys (2005). Making Modern Science: A Historical Survey (1st ed.). University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-06861-9. Retrieved 2021-04-25.
|
||||
Buchdahl, Gerd (1965). "A Revolution in Historiography of Science". History of Science. 4: 55–69. Bibcode:1965HisSc...4...55B. doi:10.1177/007327536500400103. S2CID 142838889.
|
||||
Butterfield, Herbert (1965) [1931]. The Whig Interpretation of History. New York: WW Norton and Company.
|
||||
Cronon, William (1 Sep 2012). "Two Cheers for the Whig Interpretation of History". Perspectives on History. American Historical Association. Retrieved 2026-04-30.
|
||||
Dennis, Michael Aaron. "Historiography of Science: An American Perspective," in John Krige and Dominique Pestre, eds., Science in the Twentieth Century, Amsterdam: Harwood, 1997, pp. 1–26.
|
||||
von Engelhardt, Dietrich. Historisches Bewußtsein in der Naturwissenschaft : von der Aufklärung bis zum Positivismus, Freiburg [u.a.] : Alber, 1979.
|
||||
Fleck, Ludwik, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1979.
|
||||
Gavroglu, Kostas. O Passado das Ciências como História, Porto: Porto Editora, 2007.
|
||||
Golinski, Jan (2005) [1998]. Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History of Science (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226302324.
|
||||
Graham, Loren R. (1985), "The socio-political Roots of Boris Hessen: Soviet Marxism and he History of Science", Social Studies of Science, 15 (4), London: SAGE: 705–722, doi:10.1177/030631285015004005, S2CID 143937146.
|
||||
Graham, Loren R. "Soviet attitudes towards the social and historical study of science," in Science in Russia and the Soviet Union: A Short History, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 137–155.
|
||||
Gross, Paul R.; Levitt, Norman (1997). Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-5707-2. Retrieved 2026-04-30.
|
||||
Hart, Jenifer (1965). "Nineteenth-Century Social Reform: A Tory Interpretation of History". Past & Present (31): 39–61. doi:10.1093/past/31.1.39. ISSN 0031-2746. JSTOR 650101. According to its critics, a whig interpretation of history requires human heroes and villains in the story.
|
||||
Kragh, Helge. An Introduction to the Historiography of Science, Cambridge University Press 1990
|
||||
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1996) [1962]. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-45808-3.
|
||||
Lakatos, Imre. "History of Science and its Rational Reconstructions" in Y.Elkana (ed.) The Interaction between Science and Philosophy, pp. 195–241, Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press and also published in Mathematics Science and Epistemology: Volume 2 of the Philosophical and Scientific Papers of Imre Lakatos Papers Imre Lakatos, Worrall & Currie (eds), Cambridge University Press, 1980
|
||||
Mayer, Anna K (2000). "Setting up a Discipline: Conflicting Agendas of the Cambridge History of Science Committee, 1936–1950". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. 31 (4): 665–89. Bibcode:2000SHPSA..31..665M. doi:10.1016/s0039-3681(00)00026-1. PMID 11640235.
|
||||
Mayer. "End of Ideology".'". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. 35: 2004. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2003.12.010.
|
||||
Pestre, Dominique (1995). "Pour une histoire sociale et culturelle des sciences. Nouvelles définitions, nouveaux objets, nouvelles pratiques". Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales. 50 (3): 487–522. doi:10.3406/ahess.1995.279379. S2CID 162390064.
|
||||
Popper, Karl R. (1962). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Basic Books. Retrieved 31 May 2023.
|
||||
Porter, Roy (1990). "The history of science and the history of society". In Olby, R. C.; Cantor, G. N.; Christie, J. R. R.; Hodge, M. J. S. (eds.). Companion to the History of Modern Science. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0415019880.
|
||||
Raina, Dhruv. Images and Contexts Critical Essays on the Historiography of Science in India, Oxford University Press 2003
|
||||
Rossi, Paolo, I ragni e le formiche: un'apologia della storia della scienza, Bologna, 1986.
|
||||
Swerdlow, Noel M. (1993), "Montucla's Legacy: The History of the Exact Sciences", Journal of the History of Ideas, 54 (2): 299–328, doi:10.2307/2709984, JSTOR 2709984.
|
||||
Schaffer, Simon (1984), "Newton at the crossroads", Radical Philosophy, 37: 23–38.
|
||||
Transversal: International Journal for the Historiography of Science
|
||||
Wilson, Adrian; Ashplant, T. G. (2009-02-11). "Whig History and Present-centred History". The Historical Journal. 31 (1): 10. doi:10.1017/S0018246X00011961. ISSN 1469-5103. S2CID 159748098.
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Media related to Historiography of science at Wikimedia Commons
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/3
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T07:10:34.466063+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:33.454256+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/3
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T07:10:34.466063+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:33.454256+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 3/3
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T07:10:34.466063+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:33.454256+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
66
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holomovement-0.md
Normal file
66
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holomovement-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Holomovement"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holomovement"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:13.993666+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Holomovement is a theoretical concept proposed by physicist David Bohm to describe a dynamic and unbroken totality that underlies all of reality. It forms the foundation of Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics and his metaphysical model, particularly as articulated in his book Wholeness and the Implicate Order (1980). The holomovement integrates two key ideas: undivided wholeness and constant process. It suggests that everything in the universe is interconnected and in continual motion, with all forms and structures being temporary abstractions from this deeper, flowing unity. Critics have described holomovement as a type of metaphysical mysticism.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Origins and background ==
|
||||
Louis de Broglie introduced a formalism for quantum mechanics at the 1927 Solvay Congress which explained quantum effects in terms of underlying processes such as a hypothesized pilot wave. This was met with strong criticism, particularly by Wolfgang Pauli, which caused de Broglie to abandon this suggestion. In 1952, Bohm revived the notion of a pilot wave guiding elementary particles in a way that withstood Pauli's criticism. Bohm and Basil Hiley criticized a solely epistemological model which only accounts for what can be known about physical processes; developing this pilot-wave theory into an ontological interpretation.
|
||||
Bohm felt the extended version of this causal interpretation, particularly the notion of quantum potential, implied a "radically new notion of unbroken wholeness of the entire universe". In this wholeness, which he termed the holomovement, "all things found in the unfolded, explicate order emerge from the holomovement in which they are enfolded as potentialities and ultimately they fall back into it."
|
||||
Bohm's dissatisfaction with mechanistic explanations in physics led him to propose a new worldview that emphasized interconnectedness and process. Influenced by his collaborations with Hiley and later F. David Peat, Bohm expanded his framework into a metaphysical model encompassing not only physical reality but also consciousness and cosmology.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Core concepts ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Definition ===
|
||||
Bohm defines 'holomovement' as an "unknown and indescribable totality." He goes on to say:
|
||||
|
||||
"Thus in its totality, the holomovement is not limited in any specifiable way at all. It is not required to conform to any particular order, or to be bounded by any particular measure. Thus, the holomovement is undefinable and immeasurable."
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Undivided wholeness ===
|
||||
In the first essay of Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Bohm introduces the idea of "undivided wholeness in flowing movement" as a paradigm shift from the fragmentary view of classical physics. He argues that all things are temporary abstractions from a continuous process of becoming, and that wholeness precedes the parts. Bohm's notion has been interpreted by scholars as a shift toward a process-based ontology grounded in quantum realism.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Implicate and explicate order ===
|
||||
|
||||
Bohm distinguishes between two orders of reality: the implicate (enfolded) order and the explicate (unfolded) order. The implicate order represents the hidden, generative structure of reality from which observable phenomena emerge. The holomovement is the ground from which the implicate and explicate orders arise, and into which they return.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== All is flux ===
|
||||
Echoing the philosophy of Heraclitus, Bohm emphasizes that all reality is process: "All is flux." He contrasts this with the mechanistic view of isolated particles and static laws, proposing instead that process and movement are the primary realities. Bohm's emphasis on flux and interrelation has been compared to classical Chinese thought, including the processual logic of the Yijing (Book of Changes), which models reality in terms of instability and transformation.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Applications and implications ==
|
||||
Bohm proposed, in a metaphysical extension of his quantum theory, that life and consciousness might emerge from the same implicate order that underlies physical processes. This view has been taken up in transpersonal psychology and speculative cosmology, but remains outside mainstream neuroscience.
|
||||
Recent interpretations in integrative biology have extended the holomovement concept to propose models of "omni-local consciousness," suggesting that consciousness may be a fundamental and distributed property of the holofield.
|
||||
The holomovement has also been invoked in spiritual and activist communities as a metaphor for collective awakening and planetary coherence, sometimes framing it as a foundation for a "new story" in sociocultural evolution.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Reception and criticism ==
|
||||
Theckedath, in his review of The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory by D. Bohm, B. J. Hiley, criticized their characterization of holomovement as having two "poles", one mental and one physical. According to Theckedath, the mental pole adds an element of mysticism to the holomovement concept and separates holomovement from objective matter, creating a "notion of motion without matter".
|
||||
Paavo Pylkkänen and Gordon Globus, have explored its potential relevance to mind-matter interactions and holistic neuroscience. In the field of religious studies, Wouter Hanegraaff has classified the holomovement as a "scientific myth" characteristic of New Age metaphysics. Nonetheless, it has inspired dialogues in fields such as systems theory, consciousness studies, and transpersonal psychology.
|
||||
The holomovement has also been cited in speculative ethical frameworks concerning posthuman and extraterrestrial intelligences, where it serves as a basis for modeling universal interconnectivity and moral coherence.
|
||||
Theologian Kevin J. Sharpe has proposed that Bohm's holomovement provides a viable framework for a non-dualistic metaphysical theology that preserves transcendence while allowing for dynamic immanence. Kabbalist and science scholar Jeffrey Gordon has argued that Bohm's concept of holomovement resonates with kabbalistic notions of divine unfolding, reflecting broader efforts to align mystical cosmologies with emerging scientific paradigms. Bohm's focus on vibratory enfoldment has also been compared to tantric meditative models in which primordial sound and vibration structure the unfolding of reality.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
Orchestrated objective reduction
|
||||
Karl H. Pribram
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Works cited ===
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Further reading ==
|
||||
22
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory-0.md
Normal file
22
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Holonomic brain theory"
|
||||
chunk: 1/3
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:15.207716+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Holonomic brain theory is a branch of neuroscience investigating the idea that consciousness is formed by quantum effects in or between brain cells. Holonomic refers to representations in a Hilbert phase space defined by both spectral and space-time coordinates. Holonomic brain theory is opposed by traditional neuroscience, which investigates the brain's behavior by looking at patterns of neurons and the surrounding chemistry.
|
||||
This specific theory of quantum consciousness was developed by neuroscientist Karl Pribram initially in collaboration with physicist David Bohm building on the initial theories of holograms originally formulated by Dennis Gabor. It describes human cognition by modeling the brain as a holographic storage network. Pribram suggests these processes involve electric oscillations in the brain's fine-fibered dendritic webs, which are different from the more commonly known action potentials involving axons and synapses. These oscillations are waves and create wave interference patterns in which memory is encoded naturally, and the wave function may be analyzed by a Fourier transform.
|
||||
Gabor, Pribram and others noted the similarities between these brain processes and the storage of information in a hologram, which can also be analyzed with a Fourier transform. In a hologram, any part of the hologram with sufficient size contains the whole of the stored information. In this theory, a piece of a long-term memory is similarly distributed over a dendritic arbor so that each part of the dendritic network contains all the information stored over the entire network. This model allows for important aspects of human consciousness, including the fast associative memory that allows for connections between different pieces of stored information and the non-locality of memory storage (a specific memory is not stored in a specific location, i.e. a certain cluster of neurons).
|
||||
|
||||
== Origins and development ==
|
||||
In 1946 Dennis Gabor invented the hologram mathematically, describing a system where an image can be reconstructed through information that is stored throughout the hologram. He demonstrated that the information pattern of a three-dimensional object can be encoded in a beam of light, which is more-or-less two-dimensional. Gabor also developed a mathematical model for demonstrating a holographic associative memory. One of Gabor's colleagues, Pieter Jacobus Van Heerden, also developed a related holographic mathematical memory model in 1963. This model contained the key aspect of non-locality, which became important years later when, in 1967, experiments by both Braitenberg and Kirschfield showed that exact localization of memory in the brain was false.
|
||||
Karl Pribram had worked with psychologist Karl Lashley on Lashley's engram experiments, which used lesions to determine the exact location of specific memories in primate brains. Lashley made small lesions in the brains and found that these had little effect on memory. On the other hand, Pribram removed large areas of cortex, leading to multiple serious deficits in memory and cognitive function. Memories were not stored in a single neuron or exact location, but were spread over the entirety of a neural network. Lashley suggested that brain interference patterns could play a role in perception, but was unsure how such patterns might be generated in the brain or how they would lead to brain function.
|
||||
Several years later an article by neurophysiologist John Eccles described how a wave could be generated at the branching ends of pre-synaptic axons. Multiple of these waves could create interference patterns. Soon after, Emmett Leith was successful in storing visual images through the interference patterns of laser beams, inspired by Gabor's previous use of Fourier transformations to store information within a hologram. After studying the work of Eccles and that of Leith, Pribram put forward the hypothesis that memory might take the form of interference patterns that resemble laser-produced holograms. In 1980, physicist David Bohm presented his ideas of holomovement and Implicate and explicate order. Pribram became aware of Bohm's work in 1975 and realized that, since a hologram could store information within patterns of interference and then recreate that information when activated, it could serve as a strong metaphor for brain function. Pribram was further encouraged in this line of speculation by the fact that neurophysiologists Russell and Karen DeValois together established "the spatial frequency encoding displayed by cells of the visual cortex was best described as a Fourier transform of the input pattern."
|
||||
|
||||
== Theory overview ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Hologram and holonomy ===
|
||||
21
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory-1.md
Normal file
21
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory-1.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Holonomic brain theory"
|
||||
chunk: 2/3
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:15.207716+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
A main characteristic of a hologram is that every part of the stored information is distributed over the entire hologram. Both processes of storage and retrieval are carried out in a way described by Fourier transformation equations. As long as a part of the hologram is large enough to contain the interference pattern, that part can recreate the entirety of the stored image, but the image may have unwanted changes, called noise.
|
||||
An analogy to this is the broadcasting region of a radio antenna. In each smaller individual location within the entire area it is possible to access every channel, similar to how the entirety of the information of a hologram is contained within a part. Another analogy of a hologram is the way sunlight illuminates objects in the visual field of an observer. It doesn't matter how narrow the beam of sunlight is. The beam always contains all the information of the object, and when conjugated by a lens of a camera or the eyeball, produces the same full three-dimensional image. The Fourier transform formula converts spatial forms to spatial wave frequencies and vice versa, as all objects are in essence vibratory structures. Different types of lenses, acting similarly to optic lenses, can alter the frequency nature of information that is transferred.
|
||||
This non-locality of information storage within the hologram is crucial, because even if most parts are damaged, the entirety will be contained within even a single remaining part of sufficient size. Pribram and others noted the similarities between an optical hologram and memory storage in the human brain. According to the holonomic brain theory, memories are stored within certain general regions, but stored non-locally within those regions. This allows the brain to maintain function and memory even when it is damaged. It is only when there exist no parts big enough to contain the whole that the memory is lost. This can also explain why some children retain normal intelligence when large portions of their brain—in some cases, half—are removed. It can also explain why memory is not lost when the brain is sliced in different cross-sections.[5]
|
||||
|
||||
Pribram proposed that neural holograms were formed by the diffraction patterns of oscillating electric waves within the cortex. Representation occurs as a dynamical transformation in a distributed network of dendritic microprocesses. There is a difference between the idea of a holonomic brain and a holographic one. Pribram does not suggest that the brain functions as a single hologram. Rather, the waves within smaller neural networks create localized holograms within the larger workings of the brain. This patch holography is called holonomy or windowed Fourier transformations.
|
||||
A holographic model can also account for other features of memory that more traditional models cannot. The Hopfield memory model has an early memory saturation point before which memory retrieval drastically slows and becomes unreliable. On the other hand, holographic memory models have much larger theoretical storage capacities. Holographic models can also demonstrate associative memory, store complex connections between different concepts, and resemble forgetting through "lossy storage".
|
||||
|
||||
=== Synaptodendritic web ===
|
||||
In classic brain theory the summation of electrical inputs to the dendrites and soma (cell body) of a neuron either inhibit the neuron or excite it and set off an action potential down the axon to where it synapses with the next neuron. However, this fails to account for different varieties of synapses beyond the traditional axodendritic (axon to dendrite). There is evidence for the existence of other kinds of synapses, including serial synapses and those between dendrites and soma and between different dendrites. Many synaptic locations are functionally bipolar, meaning they can both send and receive impulses from each neuron, distributing input and output over the entire group of dendrites.
|
||||
Processes in this dendritic arbor, the network of teledendrons and dendrites, occur due to the oscillations of polarizations in the membrane of the fine-fibered dendrites, not due to the propagated nerve impulses associated with action potentials. Pribram posits that the length of the delay of an input signal in the dendritic arbor before it travels down the axon is related to mental awareness. The shorter the delay the more unconscious the action, while a longer delay indicates a longer period of awareness. A study by David Alkon showed that after unconscious Pavlovian conditioning there was a proportionally greater reduction in the volume of the dendritic arbor, akin to synaptic elimination when experience increases the automaticity of an action. Pribram and others theorize that, while unconscious behavior is mediated by impulses through nerve circuits, conscious behavior arises from microprocesses in the dendritic arbor.
|
||||
At the same time, the dendritic network is extremely complex, able to receive 100,000 to 200,000 inputs in a single tree, due to the large amount of branching and the many dendritic spines protruding from the branches. Furthermore, synaptic hyperpolarization and depolarization remains somewhat isolated due to the resistance from the narrow dendritic spine stalk, allowing a polarization to spread without much interruption to the other spines. This spread is further aided intracellularly by the microtubules and extracellularly by glial cells. These polarizations act as waves in the synaptodendritic network, and the existence of multiple waves at once gives rise to interference patterns.
|
||||
50
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory-2.md
Normal file
50
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory-2.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Holonomic brain theory"
|
||||
chunk: 3/3
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:15.207716+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
=== Deep and surface structure of memory ===
|
||||
Pribram suggests that there are two layers of cortical processing: a surface structure of separated and localized neural circuits and a deep structure of the dendritic arborization that binds the surface structure together. The deep structure contains distributed memory, while the surface structure acts as the retrieval mechanism. Binding occurs through the temporal synchronization of the oscillating polarizations in the synaptodendritic web. It had been thought that binding only occurred when there was no phase lead or lag present, but a study by Saul and Humphrey found that cells in the lateral geniculate nucleus do in fact produce these. Here phase lead and lag act to enhance sensory discrimination, acting as a frame to capture important features. These filters are also similar to the lenses necessary for holographic functioning.
|
||||
Pribram notes that holographic memories show large capacities, parallel processing and content addressability for rapid recognition, associative storage for perceptual completion and for associative recall. In systems endowed with memory storage, these interactions therefore lead to progressively more self-determination.
|
||||
|
||||
== Recent studies ==
|
||||
While Pribram originally developed the holonomic brain theory as an analogy for certain brain processes, several papers (including some more recent ones by Pribram himself) have proposed that the similarity between hologram and certain brain functions is more than just metaphorical, but actually structural. Others still maintain that the relationship is only analogical. Several studies have shown that the same series of operations used in holographic memory models are performed in certain processes concerning temporal memory and optomotor responses. This indicates at least the possibility of the existence of neurological structures with certain holonomic properties. Other studies have demonstrated the possibility that biophoton emission (biological electrical signals that are converted to weak electromagnetic waves in the visible range) may be a necessary condition for the electric activity in the brain to store holographic images. These may play a role in cell communication and certain brain processes including sleep, but further studies are needed to strengthen current ones. Other studies have shown the correlation between more advanced cognitive function and homeothermy. Taking holographic brain models into account, this temperature regulation would reduce distortion of the signal waves, an important condition for holographic systems. See: Computation approach in terms of holographic codes and processing.
|
||||
|
||||
== Criticism and alternative models ==
|
||||
Pribram's holonomic model of brain function did not receive widespread attention at the time, but other quantum models have been developed since, including brain dynamics by Jibu & Yasue and Vitiello's dissipative quantum brain dynamics. Though not directly related to the holonomic model, they continue to move beyond approaches based solely in classic brain theory.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Correlograph ===
|
||||
In 1969 scientists D. Wilshaw, O. P. Buneman and H. Longuet-Higgins proposed an alternative, non-holographic model that fulfilled many of the same requirements as Gabor's original holographic model. The Gabor model did not explain how the brain could use Fourier analysis on incoming signals or how it would deal with the low signal-noise ratio in reconstructed memories. Longuet-Higgin's correlograph model built on the idea that any system could perform the same functions as a Fourier holograph if it could correlate pairs of patterns. It uses minute pinholes that do not produce diffraction patterns to create a similar reconstruction as that in Fourier holography. Like a hologram, a discrete correlograph can recognize displaced patterns and store information in a parallel and non-local way so it usually will not be destroyed by localized damage. They then expanded the model beyond the correlograph to an associative net where the points become parallel lines arranged in a grid. Horizontal lines represent axons of input neurons while vertical lines represent output neurons. Each intersection represents a modifiable synapse. Though this cannot recognize displaced patterns, it has a greater potential storage capacity. This was not necessarily meant to show how the brain is organized, but instead to show the possibility of improving on Gabor's original model. One property of the associative net that makes it attractive as a neural model is that good retrieval can be obtained even when some of the storage elements are damaged or when some of the components of the address are incorrect. P. Van Heerden countered this model by demonstrating mathematically that the signal-noise ratio of a hologram could reach 50% of ideal. He also used a model with a 2D neural hologram network for fast searching imposed upon a 3D network for large storage capacity. A key quality of this model was its flexibility to change the orientation and fix distortions of stored information, which is important for our ability to recognize an object as the same entity from different angles and positions, something the correlograph and association network models lack.
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
Gestalt psychology – Theory of perception
|
||||
Orchestrated objective reduction – Theory of a quantum origin of consciousness
|
||||
Quantum cognition – Application of quantum theory mathematics to cognitive phenomena
|
||||
Quantum mysticism – Pseudoscience claiming to build on quantum mechanics
|
||||
Self-organizing map – Machine learning technique useful for dimensionality reduction
|
||||
Sparse distributed memory – Mathematical model of memory
|
||||
Visual perception – Ability to interpret the surrounding environment using light in the visible spectrum
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Works cited ===
|
||||
Bohm, David (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-7100-0971-2.
|
||||
Pribram, Karl (1986). "Holonomic Brain Theory In Imaging And Object Perception". Acta Psychologica. 63 (1–3): 175–210. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(86)90062-4. PMID 3591432.
|
||||
Pribram, Karl (1991). Brain and Perception: Holonomy and Structure in Figural Processing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
|
||||
|
||||
== Further reading ==
|
||||
Aerts, Diedrick; Czachor, Marek; Sozzo, Sandro (2011). Privman, V.; Ovchinnikov, V. (eds.). Quantum Interaction Approach in Cognition, Artificial Intelligence, and Robots. IARIA, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Quantum, Nano and Micro Technologies. Brussels University Press. pp. 35–40. arXiv:1104.3345.
|
||||
Mishlove, Jeffrey (1998). "The Holographic Brain: Karl Pribram, Ph.D. interview". TWM.co.nz. Archived from the original on 2006-05-18. Retrieved 2012-05-18.
|
||||
Peruš, Mitja; Loo, Chu Kiong (2011). Biological And Quantum Computing For Human Vision: Holonomic Models And Applications. Medical Information Sciences Reference. ISBN 978-1615207855.
|
||||
Pribram, Karl (1993). Rethinking Neural Networks: Quantum Fields And Biological Data. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates and INNS Press.
|
||||
Pribram, Karl (2007). "Holonomic brain theory". Scholarpedia. 2 (5). Washington, DC: Georgetown University: 2735. Bibcode:2007SchpJ...2.2735P. doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.2735.
|
||||
Pribram, Karl (2013). The Form Within. Prospecta Press.
|
||||
Talbot, Michael (2011). The Holographic Universe. HarperCollins.
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
KarlPribram.com, hosts PDFs of Pribram's articles about HBT in English and Spanish
|
||||
26
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann-0.md
Normal file
26
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Ingo Swann"
|
||||
chunk: 1/3
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:25:50.545854+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Ingo Douglass Swann (September 14, 1933 – January 31, 2013) was an American psychic, artist, and author, whose claims of clairvoyance were investigated as a part of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Stargate Project. Swann is credited as the creator of the term “Remote Viewing," a term which refers to the use of extrasensory perception to perceive distant persons, places, or events.
|
||||
|
||||
== Early life ==
|
||||
Swann was born in Telluride, Colorado, on September 14th, 1933. Swann claimed to have out-of-body experiences beginning at three years of age, during a tonsil removal operation, after which he began to see colorful 'auras' around certain objects. These experiences continued throughout childhood, and eventually prompted Swann to volunteer as a participant in parapsychology research at the age of 37.
|
||||
|
||||
== Remote viewing ==
|
||||
Swann was a prominent celebrity Scientologist during the 1970s having attained the level of Operating Thetan through Scientology auditing. It is purported that the attainment of the level may extend one’s psychic abilities including controlled out-of-body experiences, called "exteriorization" in Scientology. During this time, Swann demonstrated his exteriorization skills at the Stanford Research Institute in experiments that would come to be known secularly as remote viewing. These experiments caught the attention of the Central Intelligence Agency. He is commonly credited with proposing the idea of controlled remote viewing, a process in which viewers would view a location given nothing aside from its geographical coordinates, which was developed and tested by Puthoff and Targ with CIA funding.
|
||||
|
||||
== Uri Geller ==
|
||||
Due to the popularity of Uri Geller in the seventies, skeptics and historians basically overlooked a critical examination of Swann's paranormal claims. Uri Geller commented very favorably on Swann, saying, "If you were blind and a man appeared who could teach you to see with mind power, you would revere him as a guru. So why is Ingo Swann ignored by publishers and forced to publish his astounding life story on the Internet?"
|
||||
Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, two experimenters, tested Geller and Swann and concluded that they had unique skills. Others have strongly disputed the scientific validity of Targ and Puthoff's experiments. In a 1983 interview, magician Milbourne Christopher remarked that Swann was "one of the cleverest in the field".
|
||||
|
||||
== Out-of-body experiment ==
|
||||
In 1972, in the newsletter of the American Society for Psychical Research (ASPR), their director of research Karlis Osis described his personal controlled out-of-body (OOB) experiment with Swann. The targets that Swann was to attempt to describe and illustrate were on a shelf two feet from the ceiling and several feet above Swann's head. Osis did describe the height of the ceiling. Swann suggested that the ceiling was 14 feet tall. Two kitchen-style overhead fixtures illuminated the room. Swann sat alone in the chamber, wires from electrodes fastened to his head running through the wall behind him. Swann sat just beneath the target tray. He was given a clipboard to use for sketching. Any movement while drawing did not result in "artifacts" in the brain readout. In Swann's book To Kiss Earth Goodbye there is a photograph of the objects on the shelf. Swann wrote that he knew most of the objects on a shelf above his head, but he did not know it held four numbers on a side that would not have been visible if a reflecting surface had been angled near the end.
|
||||
Psychological scales were developed to rate the quality and clarity (as subjectively described) of Swann's OOB vision, which varied from time to time. The results were evaluated by blind judging. A psychologist, Bonnie Preskari or Carole K. Silfen, was asked to match up Swann's responses without knowing which target they were meant. She matched all eight sessions. Osis stressed the odds of Swann being correct were forty thousand to one. There is no record of any experiments being performed in the dark.
|
||||
Silfen and Swann prepared an unofficial report of later out-of-body experiments and circulated it to 500 members of the ASPR before the ASPR board was aware of it. According to Swann, Silfen had disappeared and could not be located. While searching for her, he also sought help from the general public. Swann claimed that in April 1972, the ASPR in New York attempted to discredit him and expel him due to his affiliation with Scientology.
|
||||
26
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann-1.md
Normal file
26
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann-1.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Ingo Swann"
|
||||
chunk: 2/3
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:25:50.545854+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
== Magnetometer psychokinesis tests ==
|
||||
When Swann arrived at SRI, Harold Puthoff decided he would first be tested for PK. On June 6, 1972, the two men visited Dr. Arthur Heberd and his quark detector, a magnetometer, at the Varian Physics Building. The well-shielded magnetometer had a small magnetic probe in a vault five feet beneath the floor. The oscillation ran silently for about an hour, tracing a stable pattern on the chart recorder. Puthoff asked Swann if he could affect the magnetometer's magnetic field. Swann said he focused his attention on the interior of the magnetometer and was getting nothing.
|
||||
Then, there are different versions of the following events. Puthoff states that after about a five-second delay, Heberd says it was a ten- to fifteen-minute delay, the frequency of the trace recorder oscillation doubled for about 30 seconds, reportedly a common occurrence due to variations in the shared helium line to the laboratory. Heberd continued, and when the curve burped, Swann asked, "Is that what I am supposed to do?" Swann said he responded, "Is that an effect?" According to Heberd, Swann crossed the room, taking his attention away from the chart recorder. Swann said he took his mind off the machine and was sketching. Others watched the recorder to see if the irregularity would be repeated, and it was. Puthoff asked Swann, "Did you do that too?" Swann said he again responded, "Is that an effect?" According to Puthoff, Swann said he was then tired and couldn't "hold it any longer" and let go. The chart recorder pattern returned to normal.
|
||||
More supportive sources say that Heberd supports Puthoff's version, and in the second instance, Heberd suggested he would be more impressed if Swann could stop the field change altogether. Heberd denies he told James Randi that he never suggested it.
|
||||
Swann recalled he heard, "Can you do that again?" from Puthoff. Swann said his feats frightened some doctoral candidates, claiming that two "virtually ran" from the room and one collided with a "totally visible" structure support.
|
||||
Puthoff writes Dr. Heberd suggested that the equipment must be wrong. The following day, it was certain the magnetometer was malfunctioning. "The equipment was behaving erratically; it was not possible to obtain a stable background signal for calibration." Therefore, the experiment was not repeated. Swann related this SNAFU in his book, Remote Viewing: The Real Story. In his CIA report, paranormal expert Dr. Kenneth A. Kress does not record anything about Heberd's malfunctioning suggestions. Kress writes, "These variations were never seen before or after this visit." Though Swann was to spend a year at SRI, in their book, Targ and Puthoff present no further data and, Swann did not mention he was involved in any other PK experiments with the magnetometer than those that occurred and were recorded on June 6, 1972.
|
||||
Immediately after, Puthoff wrote a brief paper in a draft form. Rather than publishing the results in a scientific journal inviting peer review, this paper was circulated hand to hand throughout research and academic institutions across the US, and Puthoff accepted invitations to speak. This paper caught the attention of the CIA and two agents paid a visit to Hal Puthoff at SRI and also met Swann. Later this paper was published as a part of a conference proceedings.
|
||||
|
||||
== Early Coordinate Remote Viewing experiments ==
|
||||
Targ and Puthoff write about their pilot experiments, "We couldn't overlook the possibility that perhaps Ingo knew the geographical features of the Earth and their approximate latitude and longitude. (It is Swann who suggests these Coordinate Remote Viewing tests, not the experimenters. He is in control.) "Or it was possible that we were inadvertently cueing the subject (Swann), since we as experimenters knew what the answers were."
|
||||
Soon, Targ and Puthoff performed more experiments with Swann, and the controls were tightened to eliminate the possibility of error. This time Swann was given the latitude and longitude of ten targets, in the end there would be ten runs, for a total of 100. Only the evaluations of the ten targets from the tenth run, the last, were disclosed. The results of the targets from the previous ninety (runs 1–9) are ignored. Swann had seven hits for the tenth run, two neutral and one miss. The experiments came to a close. Targ and Puthoff were positive: "Something was happening, but they are not clear what it is." (This method of selecting a small number of "guesses" from a larger, sometimes never disclosed larger number, is known as the free response method in remote viewing but could be called cherry picking.) According to Swann and Stanford Research International, his RV was correct probably 95% of the time. His personally trained students' RV were 85% correct, 85% of the time. See: Stargate Project
|
||||
|
||||
== Swann's descriptions of Jupiter ==
|
||||
Swann proposed a study to Targ and Puthoff. At first, they resisted, for the resulting descriptions would be impossible to verify. Yet, on the evening of 27 April 1973, Targ and Puthoff recorded Swann's remote viewing session of the planet Jupiter and Jupiter's moons, before the Voyager probe's visit there in 1979.
|
||||
Swann asked for 30 minutes of silence. Swann said his ability to see Jupiter took about three and a half minutes. In the session, he made several reports on the physical features of Jupiter, such as its atmosphere and the surface of its core. Swann claimed to see bands of crystals in the atmosphere, which he likened to clouds and possibly like the rings of Saturn. The Voyager probe later confirmed the existence of the rings of Jupiter, although these rings are not in the planet's atmosphere. However, Swann's claim that crystals are present in the atmosphere is supported by observations by NASA's Galileo spacecraft of clouds of ammonia ice crystals in the northwest corner of Jupiter's Great Red Spot.
|
||||
The following is Swann's version of his statements from 1995, 22 years after the 1973 experiments:
|
||||
63
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann-2.md
Normal file
63
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann-2.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Ingo Swann"
|
||||
chunk: 3/3
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:25:50.545854+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
[6:06:20] Very high in the atmosphere there are crystals ... they glitter. Maybe the stripes are like bands of crystals, maybe like rings of Saturn, though not far out like that. Very close within the atmosphere. [Unintelligible sentence.] I bet you they'll reflect radio probes. Is that possible if you had a cloud of crystals that were assaulted by different radio waves?
|
||||
[6:08:00] Now I'll go down through. It feels really good there [laughs]. I said that before, didn't I? Inside those cloud layers, those crystal layers, they look beautiful from the outside. From the inside they look like rolling gas clouds – eerie yellow light, rainbows.
|
||||
[6:10:20] I get the impression, though I don't see, that it's liquid.
|
||||
[6:10:55] Then I came through the cloud cover. The surface – it looks like sand dunes. They're made of very large grade crystals, so they slide. Tremendous winds, sort of like maybe the prevailing winds of Earth, but very close to the surface of Jupiter. From that view, the horizon looks orangish or rose-colored, but overhead it's kind of greenish-yellow.
|
||||
[6:12:35] If I look to the right there is an enormous mountain range.
|
||||
[6:14:45] I feel that there's liquid somewhere. Those mountains are very huge but they still don't poke up through the crystal cloud cover. You know I had a dream once something like this, where the cloud cover was a great arc ... sweeps over the entire heaven. Those grains which make that sand orange are quite large. They have a polished surface and they look something like amber or like obsidian but they're yellowish and not as heavy. The wind blows them. They slide along.
|
||||
[6:16:37] If I turn, the whole thing seems enormously flat. I mean, if I get the feeling that if a man stood on those sands, I think he would sink into them [laughs]. Maybe that's where that liquid feeling comes from.
|
||||
|
||||
Swann's transcript contained in "Mind-Reach: Scientists Look at Psychic Ability" by Russell Targ & Harold Puthoff is slightly different from Swann's later version. There is no mention of sand and he also states, "I feel there is liquid some-where ... liquid like water."
|
||||
Swann's total observations lasted for about 20 minutes. He did not mention any of the 95 moons of Jupiter. The raw data comprised only four pages, but according to Swann, the confirmatory data appeared throughout the published scientific and technical articles and papers. It was decided that all of these should be included to ensure that no scientific passage was inadvertently used out of context. The feedback data, therefore, amounted to about 300 pages.
|
||||
|
||||
== Brain activity during remote viewing ==
|
||||
In November 2001, there was an article by Michael Persinger published in The Journal of Neuropsychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences. The results with Swann suggested that there were associated measurable changes in brain activity during his remote viewing. There was bipolar electroencephalographic activity over the occipital, temporal, and frontal lobes. Persinger concluded that there was "significant congruence" between the stimuli and Swann's electroencephalographic activity.
|
||||
|
||||
== Psychic detectives ==
|
||||
Swann reported that out of the twenty-five criminal cases he worked on between 1972 and 1979, twenty-two were flops, and three were successes. According to Swann, Gerard Croiset and Peter Hurkos were super sensitive sleuths. Authors Arthur Lyons and Marcello Truzzi Ph.D., also a founder of the International Remote Viewing Association, wrote the Croiset and Hurkos cases were "pure bunk" in their 1991 book The Blue Sense: Psychic Detectives and Crime.
|
||||
|
||||
== Ufology ==
|
||||
Swann was a supporter of ufology and James W. Moseley's Saucer Smear newsletter. Swann, writing "in appreciation of 'Saucer Smear' and its Esteemed Editor", wrote that "although many of its readers might view 'Saucer Smear' merely as a droll ufology gossip rag, in the larger picture it is rather more accurately a profound 'window' opening up onto the sociology of ufology. Therefore its cumulative issues constitute a precious historical archive."
|
||||
In his 1998 autobiography Penetration: The Question of Extraterrestrial and Human Telepathy, Swann described his work with individuals in an unknown agency who study extraterrestrials (E.T.), his remote viewing of a secret E.T. base on the hidden side of the Moon and his "shocking" experience with a sexy scantily dressed female E.T. in a Los Angeles supermarket. He concludes that extraterrestrials are living on Earth in humanoid bodies. Swann deduces that there are many extraterrestrials, that many are "bio-androids", and that they are aware their only foes on Earth are psychics. Later, Swann and an individual known as "Mr. Axelrod" took a flight to an unknown northerly destination, deduced by Swann as possibly Alaska. Along with two "twin" bodyguards, Swann and Axelrod attempt to secretly watch a recurrent UFO appear and suck up the water of a lake. Mr. Axelrod discloses that the silent, growing, oscillating triangle is simultaneously scanning the area and eliminating any animals in the area and that the silent "beams" emanating from the object were "blasting deer or porcupines from the woods or something." The "twin" bodyguards come to the attention that they've been discovered, and the group is "attacked" by the UFO. Swann was thrown to safety by his colleagues and sustained a minor injury.
|
||||
|
||||
== Publications ==
|
||||
The Great Apparitions of Mary - An Examination of Twenty-two Supranormal Appearances - Copyright 1996 by Ingo Swann - Printed by The Crossroad Publishing Company, 370 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017
|
||||
To Kiss Earth Good-bye: Adventures and Discoveries in the Nonmaterial, "Recounted by the Man who has Astounded Physicists and Parapsychologists Throughout the World".
|
||||
Self-help books:
|
||||
Everybody's Guide to Natural ESP: Unlocking the Extrasensory Power of Your Mind
|
||||
Your Nostradamus Factor — Accessing Your Innate Ability to See Into the Future
|
||||
Psychic sexuality: The bio-psychic "anatomy" of sexual energies
|
||||
1979 Fiction. Star Fire. 0 7221 8303 8
|
||||
1980 book on future world events: What Will Happen to You When the Soviets Take Over?
|
||||
Autobiography: Penetration: The Question of Extraterrestrial and Human Telepathy (1998).
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
The Men Who Stare at Goats
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
== Further reading ==
|
||||
Buchanan, Lyn, The Seventh Sense: The Secrets Of Remote Viewing As Told By A "Psychic Spy" for the U.S. Military, ISBN 0-7434-6268-8
|
||||
Fabreguettes, Benoit, and Masotti, Laurent, Awaken Your Intuition: The ABCs of Remote Viewing, BookBaby, 2022, ISBN 978-1-66786-810-3
|
||||
McMoneagle, Joseph, The Stargate Chronicles: Memoirs of a Psychic Spy, Hampton Roads 2002, ISBN 1-57174-225-5
|
||||
Ronson, Jon, The Men Who Stare at Goats Simon & Schuster, 2004, ISBN 0-7432-4192-4. The military budget cuts after Vietnam and how it all began.
|
||||
Schnabel, Jim, Remote Viewers: The Secret History of America's Psychic Spies, Dell, 1997, ISBN 0-440-22306-7
|
||||
Smith, Paul H, Reading the Enemy's Mind : Inside Star Gate—America's Psychic Espionage Program, Forge Books 2005, ISBN 0-312-87515-0
|
||||
Swann, Ingo, Penetration: The Question of Extraterrestrial and Human Telepathy, Ingo Swann Books, 1998 Ingo Swann | AlienZoo.com
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Ingo Swann at IMDb
|
||||
Official Website, run by his Niece Elly Flippen
|
||||
BioMindSuperPowers.com: Superpowers of
|
||||
Rviewer.com: Swann's research work
|
||||
Ingo Swann speaks on YouTube
|
||||
BioMindSuperPowers.com Archived 8 July 2010 at the Wayback Machine Swann's reworked (12 Sept 1996) presentation to the Members of the Society for Enlightenment and Transformation at the United Nations. Delivered 21 Mar 1994.
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Institute for the Study of the Jewish Question"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Study_of_the_Jewish_Question"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:40.921593+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Institute for the Study of the Jewish Question (German: Institut zum Studium der Judenfrage) was founded in 1934 and was affiliated with the Reich Ministry of Propaganda under Joseph Goebbels. In 1939 the institution was called "Anti-Semitic Action" (Antisemitische Aktion) and from 1942 "Anti-Jewish Action" (Antijüdische Aktion).
|
||||
The institute was founded in 1934 by Eberhard Taubert on behalf of the Reich Propaganda Ministry. Originally, the institute was to be a joint research center against Judaism, Freemasonry and liberalism, but soon the tasks were separated. From the beginning, the Propaganda Ministry tried to camouflage the institute's affiliation with the government, since negative foreign policy consequences were feared.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
Institute for the Study and Elimination of Jewish Influence on German Church Life
|
||||
Institute for Research on the Jewish Question
|
||||
German Christians (movement)
|
||||
Eberhard Taubert
|
||||
Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
33
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor_(oculist)-0.md
Normal file
33
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor_(oculist)-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "John Taylor (oculist)"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor_(oculist)"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:25:57.646686+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
John Taylor (c. 1703 – 1770 or 1772) was an early British eye surgeon, self-promoter and medical charlatan of 18th-century Europe. He was responsible for the surgical mistreatment of George Frideric Handel, Johann Sebastian Bach, and perhaps hundreds of others. Both Handel and Bach died shortly after the botched surgery performed by Taylor.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Career ==
|
||||
Taylor was born in Norwich, possibly in 1703. He was the son of a surgeon named John Taylor, who died in 1709. He studied in London under the pioneering British surgeon William Cheselden at St Thomas' Hospital, and by 1727 had produced a book, An Account of the Mechanism of the Eye, dedicated to Cheselden.
|
||||
While his practice grew, operating on celebrities of the time such as Edward Gibbon, making the acquaintance of Viennese courtier and patron of composers Gottfried van Swieten, and being appointed royal eye surgeon to King George II, his flair for self-promotion grew with it, then beyond it. Taylor later claimed that during his visit to Marseille in 1734 he stimulated Jacques Daviel (the initiator of cataract extraction as opposed to couching) to pursue ophthalmic practice seems to be supported by contemporaneous evidence. Taylor dubbed himself "Chevalier", though the source of his title (equivalent to "knight" in English) is questionable, and his claims to be from an aristocratic family were false. Taylor was not ennobled until 1755, by Pope Benedict XIV. Taylor toured Europe in a coach painted with images of eyes, performing the ancient technique of couching cataracts and other techniques in something like an eye surgery travelling medicine show, with claims, treatments, and payments coordinated for an easy exit out of town. In his expansive 1761 autobiography in two volumes, The Life and Extraordinary History of the Chevalier John Taylor, Taylor styled himself "Ophthalmiater (sic) Pontifical, Imperial, Royal."
|
||||
Taylor's career was destructive. His general approach included bloodletting, laxatives, and eyedrops of blood from slaughtered pigeons, pulverized sugar, or baked salt. In late March 1750, during one of his European tours, Taylor operated on Bach's cataracts twice in Leipzig and reportedly blinded him. Bach fell ill with a fever and died less than four months later. There is some evidence that Taylor operated on Handel in August 1758, in Tunbridge Wells, after which Handel's health deteriorated until his death in April 1759. In both cases Taylor claimed complete success. Prior to performing each surgical procedure, he would deliver a long, self-promoting speech in an unusual oratorial style. Dutch ophthalmologist R. Zegers mentions that "after his training, Taylor started practicing in Switzerland, where he blinded hundreds of patients, he once confessed". Writer Samuel Johnson said of Taylor that his life showed "an instance of how far impudence may carry ignorance."
|
||||
The time and place of Taylor's death are uncertain. The musicologist Charles Burney claimed that he died on the morning of Friday 16 November 1770 in Rome, also claiming to have "dined with him at my table d'hote a few days before his death". He was also said to have died in Paris. In June and July 1772, newspapers in Germany and England reported that he recently died at a convent in Prague, completely blind, after having suffered from amaurosis. This version of the story was supported by Taylor's grandson John Taylor.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
William Read
|
||||
Joshua Ward
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Further reading ==
|
||||
Albert, Daniel M.; Henkind, Paul (1993). "John Taylor: 1703–1772". Men of Vision: Lives of Notable Figures in Ophthalmology. Philadelphia: Saunders. pp. 41–49. ISBN 0-7216-4512-7.
|
||||
Albert, Daniel M. (2011). Chevalier John Taylor: England's Early Oculist: Pretender or Pioneer?. Madison, WI: Parallel Press. ISBN 978-1-934795-32-3.
|
||||
Wright, A. Dickson (1957). "Quacks Through the Ages". Journal of the Royal Society of Arts. 105 (4995): 161–178. JSTOR 41368549.
|
||||
Carlyle, E. Irving (1898). "Taylor, John (1703–1772)". In Lee, Sidney (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 55. London: Smith, Elder, & Co. pp. 441–442.
|
||||
38
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_H._Pribram-0.md
Normal file
38
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_H._Pribram-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Karl H. Pribram"
|
||||
chunk: 1/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_H._Pribram"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:04.515998+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Karl Harry Pribram ([ˈpr̝̊iːbram]) (February 25, 1919 – January 19, 2015) was an American-Austrian researcher in the fields of cognitive psychology, cognitive science, neuropsychology, holonomic brain theory, and holographic consciousness. He was a professor at Georgetown University and an emeritus professor at Stanford University at the time of his death. Before moving to Georgetown, he was the James P. and Anna King Distinguished Professor at Radford University. He was best known for his work on the holonomic brain theory.
|
||||
|
||||
== Major Contributions ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Cognitive revolution in psychology ===
|
||||
Plans and the Structure of Behavior (1960), co-written with George Armitage Miller and Eugene Galanter, is widely credited as a seminal work in the development of the field of cognitive psychology. This work fueled the cognitive revolution, which established cognitive psychology as the dominant trend in psychology, replacing behaviorism.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Emotional processes and the limbic system ===
|
||||
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Pribram became "recognized for pioneering research defining the boundaries of the limbic system." Through more than 50 surgical experiments, Pribram's laboratory was able to establish that the limbic system, governing emotions, also interacted with the executive functions of the prefrontal cortex, governing personality, decision making, and social behavior. He discovered the "sensory specific" functions of the Association cortex, revealing that these systems organize the choices we make among sensory inputs, which supports higher order cognitive processes, such as perception, language and thought.
|
||||
In 1958, Pribram coined the term "the Four F's" ("Feeding, Fighting, Fleeing and Sex") to describe the functions of the fronto-limbic system (the limbic system including the pre-frontal and association cortex). Additionally, through extensive laboratory testing with primates, Pribram and his students discovered that removal of the amygdala from these systems affected this set of behaviors, resulting in reset of hierarchical relationships within the group.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Sensory processes and memory ===
|
||||
Pribram's work Brain and Perception: Holonomy and Structure in Figural Processing (1991) conveyed his theory, based on experimental evidence, that sensory perception, along with memory storage and retrieval, is processed through dendritic fields, in a manner similar to quantum field theory.
|
||||
Pribram describes his discovery, through extensive experiments with graduate students Mortimer Mishkin, John Robert Anderson, and Leslie Ungerleider, of the importance of the inferior temporal cortex's role in vision. Until this discovery, the temporal lobe was thought to be devoted to hearing.
|
||||
In Brain and Perception, Pribram also addresses the longstanding question of whether brain functions are distributed or localized. He "emphasizes the fact that both distributed (holistic) and localized (structural) processes characterize brain function." He further analyzes wave-type input received by our senses (touch, taste, smell, sound and sight) through lens-like receptors (e.g., the cochlea for sound waves).
|
||||
Pribram provides models of his experimental data, developed with the Japanese mathematical physicists Kunio Yasue and Mari Jibu, in order to demonstrate how we receive, perceive, and retrieve information from the outside world ("navigate" our world).
|
||||
|
||||
=== Holonomic model ===
|
||||
|
||||
Karl Pribram first explored the metaphor of information storage in the brain as a hologram in his Languages of the Brain: Experimental Paradoxes and Principles in Neuropsychology (1971). In a 1974 review of Languages, in Behavioral Science Journal, R.P McDermott and Laurence Mucciolo stated "The book's contribution to neuropsychology will be hailed, developed and disputed for years to come."
|
||||
Pribram's holonomic model of brain processing is further developed in Brain and Perception: Holonomy and Structure in Figural Processing (1991), which contains the extension of his work with David Bohm, as well as numerous quantum and mathematical physicists. This theory - derived from 40 years of laboratory experiments and hundreds of tests - demonstrates the following: that certain brain processes, such as memory, do not take place solely through the axons, synapses, or reflex-type actions but rather through a concerted, ever-changing process that operates similarly to quantum field theory. Processing occurs in the neuron's felt-like fields of fine-fibered dendrites (branches), as well as in the dynamic electrical fields that surround these dendrites.
|
||||
Hence, Karl Pribram's holonomic brain theory demonstrates that some brain processes are distributed (non-localized) in the form of interference wave patterns, and can interact on a quantum level. Pribram based his initial theory on the Fourier Transform, which enables one to analyze any repeated wave-form. After numerous conversations with Nobel Laureate Gábor Dénes [Dennis Gabor] inventor of holography, Pribram expanded his model to incorporate Gabor's holographic model of information storage into Pribram's holonomic theory of brain processing.
|
||||
|
||||
=== The past and future of brain research ===
|
||||
Pribram's last important publication, published two years before his death, is The Form Within: My Point of View (2013). In this scientific memoir, Pribram describes 200 years of the interrelationships among the fields of brain research, neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy, coupled with his personal insights derived from 75 years of active participation in all of these fields. Pribram shares his hands-on research, as well as his publications with colleagues over the decades, and his intimate interactions with well-known figures in philosophy, psychology, physics, and neuroscience, including: Nobel Laureates Sir John Eccles, Ilya Prigogine, Dennis Gabor, Francis Crick, Hubel and Wiesel; and scientists such as B. F. Skinner, Wolfgang Kohler, Karl Lashley, Aleksandr Romanovitch Luria, Eugene Sokolov, David Bohm, and many others.
|
||||
The Form Within is widely regarded as a tour de force in the history of brain research, described by the Journal of Integrative Neuroscience as, "... an amazingly clear, voluminously detailed, yet easily accessible description of [Pribram's] experiments over the past seven decades in neurocognition by man and animals."
|
||||
|
||||
== Career ==
|
||||
24
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_H._Pribram-1.md
Normal file
24
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_H._Pribram-1.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Karl H. Pribram"
|
||||
chunk: 2/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_H._Pribram"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:04.515998+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
=== Private practice and Yerkes ===
|
||||
In the 1940s, Pribram became one of the first 300 board-certified neurosurgeons in the world after receiving his MD from University of Chicago at the age of 22.
|
||||
During his education and residency, he studied under or collaborated with such luminaries as Anton Carlson, Ralph Gerard, Percival Bailey, and Warren McCullock. At Chicago Memorial Hospital Pribram was the first resident under Paul Bucy, the pioneer in the study of the temporal lobe, which later influenced Pribram's discoveries in that field. Bucy arranged for Pribram to complete his residency with Eric Oldberg, the last of Harvey Cushing's residents who received individual training by Cushing.
|
||||
Throughout his life, Pribram would engage in pioneering work on the definition of the limbic system, the relationship of the frontal cortex to the limbic system, the sensory-specific association cortex of the parietal and temporal lobes, and the classical motor cortex of the human brain.
|
||||
During his first ten years of residency and as a practicing brain surgeon in Memphis, TN, and Jacksonville, FL, Pribram became concerned about the then-accepted practice of lobotomy and set out to discover the true function of the frontal lobes, which was unknown at that time. This quest led Pribram into the field of brain research, which resulted in the discovery that the frontal lobes are the critical "executors" of the brain.
|
||||
While still in private practice as a surgeon in Florida, Pribram simultaneously offered his services to Karl Lashley at the Yerkes Primate Center (Yerkes Laboratories of Primate Biology), and there continued his research into the relationship between brain function and mental processes. Lashley shared techniques and disciplines in the field of experimental psychology, while Pribram "added neurosurgical sophistication" and sterility practices to the field of primate neurological research. Pribram's colleagues at Yerkes included Roger Sperry and Donald Hebb. Shortly after the end of WWII, Pribram succeeded Lashley as director of Yerkes; under his tenure the field of animal neuropsychology expanded and flourished.
|
||||
These early years would prove to be influential in Pribram's development of theories about the structure of the brain and related mental processes. Two of the earliest discoveries Pribram made while at Yerkes were as follows: 1) the relationship between the frontal cortex (personality, decision making, and social behavior) and the limbic forebrain (emotions); and 2) the functions of the posterior cortex (visual processing, spatial reasoning, and memory).
|
||||
|
||||
=== Yale University and the Institute of Living (1948-1959) ===
|
||||
In 1948, Pribram was invited by Professor John Fulton (author of Physiology of the Nervous System) to join the Department of Physiology at Yale University. Pribram began his research there focusing on understanding the functions of the inferior temporal lobe. This research led to Pribram's discoveries about the relationship between the anterior frontal cortex (decision-making and complex problem-solving) and the limbic forebrain (sensory processing). His colleagues, collaborators, and graduate students at Yale included Allan Mirsky, Hal Rosvold, Paul Maclean, Lawrence Kruger, Robert Livingston, and James Stevenson.
|
||||
Additionally, Pribram worked with Wolfgang Köhler (Swarthmore/Dartmouth) to test Kohler's hypothesis of Direct Current as the basis for cortical processing. Pribram was able to demonstrate that there was indeed a Direct Current shift during visual (and auditory) stimulation.
|
||||
While at Yale, Pribram established and directed the Psychophysiology Laboratory at the Institute of Living in Hartford, which "became a mecca for students intensely interested in the relationship between brain and behavior." As Director of the Psychophysiology Laboratory, Pribram would conduct some of the earliest research on brain circuitry. The years of this laboratory under Pribram's leadership has been called "The Golden Age of Primate Neuropsychology."
|
||||
During this time, Pribram also established relationships with psychologists at Harvard University and "learned a great deal from S.S. Stevens, Gary Boring, and Georg von Bekesy." Additionally, Pribram noted that his collaboration with B.F. Skinner at Harvard, "led to a decade of primate operant conditioning experiments, which developed into subsequent research in cognitive neuropsychology." Pribram's further interactions and experiments with behavioral scientists ultimately led him to develop new areas of research that went beyond behaviorism, and looked instead to "the new neurology… a cognitive science which paid heed to the brain's control over its own input from the senses." This expanded approach to cognitive science is detailed in Plans and the Structure of Behavior (Galanter, Miller, Pribram, 1960), launching the "Cognitive Revolution."
|
||||
Among his students at that time were Lawrence Weiskrantz, Walter Freeman III and Mortimer Mishkin.
|
||||
63
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_H._Pribram-2.md
Normal file
63
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_H._Pribram-2.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Karl H. Pribram"
|
||||
chunk: 3/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_H._Pribram"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:04.515998+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
=== Stanford University (1959-1989) ===
|
||||
After his tenure at Yale, Pribram moved to the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University. For the next 30 years he taught neurophysiology and physiological psychology at Stanford with joint appointments in the Department of Psychiatry (Medical School Faculty) and of Psychology (Arts and Sciences Faculty).
|
||||
During this time, Pribram pioneered the field of neuropsychology, leading groundbreaking research into the interrelations of the brain, behavior, and cognition.
|
||||
At Stanford, a part-time secretary, Barbara Honegger, filed a complaint alleging that Pribram had "denied [her] a job rank she was entitled to" while further alleging that Pribram had "struck her in the head." Pribram was placed on temporary probation by Stanford, while Honegger received a parting out-of-court settlement from the school.
|
||||
While a professor at Stanford, with joint appointments in the departments of Psychology and Psychiatry, Pribram was honored with a Lifetime Grant from the US Office of Naval Research as well as a Lifetime Research Career Award from the National Institutes of Health.
|
||||
Upon becoming emeritus at Stanford University, Pribram accepted the position of the James P. and Anna King Distinguished Professor at Radford University and, in 1989, was appointed Eminent Scholar of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Radford built the Center for Brain Research and Informational Sciences (B.R.A.I.N.S.) for Pribram to direct with the support of Alastair Harris, chair of the psychology department.
|
||||
After 60 years of leading research and development in the field of brain research, Pribram was appointed Distinguished Professor of Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience at Georgetown University in 1998. Simultaneously, he was appointed Distinguished Professor in the Engineering and Computer Science Department at George Mason University.
|
||||
|
||||
== Influence on other researchers ==
|
||||
Over fifty doctoral and fifty postdoctoral fellows were trained in the neuropsychological laboratories at Yale and Stanford under Pribram's direction.
|
||||
During Pribram's tenure at Yale, while simultaneously directing the Psychophysiology Laboratory at the Institute for Living, many young researchers were able to explore the importance of utilizing psychology combined with neurophysiology, including Lawrence Weiskrantz (Harvard) and Mortimer Mishkin (McGill).
|
||||
At Stanford, Leslie Ungerleider (noted experimental psychologist and neuroscientist) was among those who made major contributions.
|
||||
|
||||
== Accolades ==
|
||||
Karl Pribram was the recipient of more than seventy major international awards and honors, including a Lifetime Grant from the US Office of Naval Research, the Lifetime Research Career Award from the National Institutes of Health, the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Society of Experimental Psychology, the Award for Distinguished Career in Science from the Washington Academy of Sciences, the Neural Network Leadership Award from the International Neural Network Society, and the Outstanding Contributions Award from the American Board of Medical Psychotherapists.
|
||||
He was granted an Honorary Doctorate in Psychology from the University of Montreal, Canada, and an Honorary Doctorate in Neuroscience from the University of Bremen, Germany.
|
||||
Pribram was presented the inaugural Dagmar and Vaclav Havel Award (The VIZE 97 Prize) in 1999 for uniting the sciences and the humanities. The award was created to honor significant individuals whose work transcends the conventional framework of scientific understanding. Vaclav Havel, President of the Czech Republic, declared, "[Pribram] is an example to people of different fields and orientations, such as neurologists, psychologists, mathematicians, scientists and philosophers. It is a wonder to see people from all over the world united by one purpose when so often the world is divided by distrust and small disparities."
|
||||
|
||||
=== Selected Honors and Awards ===
|
||||
Source:
|
||||
|
||||
Lifetime Grant, US Office of Naval Research
|
||||
Lifetime Research Career Award, National Institutes of Health (1962)
|
||||
Lifetime Achievement Award, Society of Experimental Psychology
|
||||
President of the International Neuropsychological Society (1967)
|
||||
American Psychological Association
|
||||
Division of Physiological and Comparative Psychology (President, 1967–1968)
|
||||
Division of Theological and Philosophical Psychology (President, 1979–1980)
|
||||
Menfred Sakel Award, Society for Biological Psychiatry (1976)
|
||||
Realia Honor, Institute for Advanced Philosophic Research (1986)
|
||||
Outstanding Contributions Award, American Board of Medical Psychotherapists (1990)
|
||||
Honorary Ph.D. in psychology, University of Montreal, Canada (1992)
|
||||
Neural Network Leadership Award, International Neural Network Society (1994)
|
||||
Honorary Ph.D. in neuroscience, University of Bremen, Germany (1996)
|
||||
The Noetic Medal of Consciousness & Brain Research (1998)
|
||||
First recipient of the Dagmar and Vaclav Havel Award: The VIZE 97 Prize (1999)
|
||||
Culver Man of the Year, Culver Military Academy (2000)
|
||||
Award for Distinguished Career in Science, Washington Academy of Sciences (2010)
|
||||
|
||||
== In popular culture ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== The Holographic Universe ===
|
||||
|
||||
Michael Talbot opened the acknowledgements section of his work with the note, "David Bohm, Ph.D., and Karl Pribram, Ph.D., who were generous with both their time and their ideas, and without whose work this book would not have been written."
|
||||
|
||||
=== The Aquarian Conspiracy ===
|
||||
Marilyn Ferguson summarized and interpreted Karl Pribram's holonomic model of brain processing in her popular book, The Aquarian Conspiracy (1980). In the book she also describes how Pribram's son, John Pribram, Ph.D., introduced him to the work of David Bohm, leading to the further development of Pribram's holonomic brain theory. Additionally, Ferguson produced the Brain/Mind Bulletin, a science newsletter dedicated to sharing cutting-edge research from prominent scientists and theorists including Pribram, Bohm, and Prigogine.
|
||||
|
||||
=== SyberVision ===
|
||||
Steve DeVore, the founder of SyberVision, worked as a research assistant to Pribram at Stanford, where he would investigate the function of mirror neurons. Together they published The Neuropsychology of Achievement which proposed the concept of creating an "image of achievement" to attain one's goals.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Feldenkrais Foundation ===
|
||||
While at Stanford, Pribram was introduced to Dr. Moshé Feldenkrais, the founder of the Feldenkrais Method. Pribram would later visit Feldenkrais' training program in California where they engaged in a series of conversations focused on the holographic and dynamic qualities of brain functioning.
|
||||
40
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_H._Pribram-3.md
Normal file
40
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_H._Pribram-3.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Karl H. Pribram"
|
||||
chunk: 4/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_H._Pribram"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:27:04.515998+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
== Selected books ==
|
||||
Hamburg, D. A., Pribram, K. H., and Stunkard, A. J. (Eds.) (1970) Perception and Its Disorders. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.
|
||||
Hyden, H., Lorenz, K., Magoun, H.W., Penfield, W., and Pribram, K.H. (Eds) (1969) On the Biology of Learning. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.
|
||||
King, J. S., and Pribram, K.H., (Eds.) (1995) Scale in Conscious Experience: Is the Brain Too Important to be Left to Specialists to Study?, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. ISBN 0-8058-2178-3
|
||||
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., and Pribram, K. H. (1960) Plans and the Structure of Behavior. New York: Henry Holt, 1960. (Russian trans; also in Japanese, German, Spanish, Italian.) ISBN 0-03-010075-5
|
||||
Isaacson, R. L., and Pribram, K. H. (Eds.) (1975) The Hippocampus, Volumes I and II. New York: Plenum. ISBN 0-306-37535-4
|
||||
Isaacson, R. L., and Pribram, K. H. (Eds.) (1986) The Hippocampus, Volumes III and IV. New York: Plenum.
|
||||
Pribram, K. H., and Broadbent, D. (Eds.) (1970) Biology of Memory. New York: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-564350-0
|
||||
Pribram, K. H., and Gill, M. M. (1976) Freud's `Project' Re-Assessed: Preface to Contemporary Cognitive Theory and Neuropsychology. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-02569-2
|
||||
Pribram, K.H., and King, J.S. (Eds.) (1996) Learning as Self-Organization. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. ISBN 0-8058-2586-X
|
||||
Pribram, K. H., and Luria, A. R. (Eds.) (1973) Psychophysiology of the Frontal Lobes. New York: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-564340-3
|
||||
Pribram, K.H., and Ramirez, J.M. (1980) Cerebro, Mente y Holograma. Madrid: Alhambra.
|
||||
Pribram, K. H. (Ed.) (1969) Brain and Behavior, Volumes I-IV. London: Penguin, Ltd. ISBN 0-14-080521-4
|
||||
Pribram, K. H. (1971) What Makes Man Human. (39th James Arthur Lecture on the Evolution of the Human Brain, 1970). New York: American Museum of Natural History.
|
||||
Pribram, K. H. (1971) Languages of the Brain: Experimental Paradoxes and Principles in Neuropsychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1977; New York: Brandon House, 1982. (Translations in Russian, Japanese, Italian, Spanish)
|
||||
Pribram, K. H. (Ed.) (1974) Central Processing of Sensory Input. The Neurosciences: Third Study Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
|
||||
Pribram, K. H. (1991) Brain and Perception: Holonomy and Structure in Figural Processing. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. ISBN 978-0-89859-995-4
|
||||
Pribram, K.H. (Ed.) (1993) Rethinking Neural Networks: Quantum Fields and Biological Data. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. ISBN 0-8058-1466-3
|
||||
Pribram, K.H. (Ed.) (1994) Origins: Brain & Self Organization. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. ISBN 978-1-138-87652-1
|
||||
Pribram, K.H. (1995) Cerebro Y Conciencia. Madrid, Spain: Diaz de Santos.
|
||||
Pribram, K.H. (Ed.) (1998) Brain and Values: Is a Biological Science of Values Possible. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0-8058-3154-1
|
||||
Pribram, K.H. (2013) The Form Within. Prospecta Press. ISBN 978-1-935212-80-5
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Karl Pribram's Website karlpribram.com
|
||||
Karl Pribram, MD interviewed by Howard Kaufman, MD (American Association of Neurological Surgeons)
|
||||
Meeting of the Minds: Interview with Karl Pribram
|
||||
Photos of Karl Pribram with friends and colleagues (KatherineNeville.com)
|
||||
37
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_O._May_Prize-0.md
Normal file
37
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_O._May_Prize-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Kenneth O. May Prize"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_O._May_Prize"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:28:15.517128+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Kenneth O. May Prize and Medal in history of mathematics is an award of the International Commission on the History of Mathematics (ICHM) "for the encouragement and promotion of the history of mathematics internationally". It was established in 1989 and is named in honor of Kenneth O. May, the founder of ICHM. Since then, the award is given every four years, at the ICHM congress.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Kenneth O. May Prize winners ==
|
||||
Source: (1989-2005) A Brief History of the Kenneth O. May Prize
|
||||
|
||||
2025: Jan Hogendijk and David E. Rowe
|
||||
2021: Sonja Brentjes and Christine Proust
|
||||
2017: Eberhard Knobloch and Roshdi Rashed
|
||||
2013: Menso Folkerts and Jens Høyrup
|
||||
2009: Ivor Grattan-Guinness and Radha Charan Gupta
|
||||
2005: Henk J. M. Bos
|
||||
2001: Ubiratàn D'Ambrosio and Lam Lay Yong
|
||||
1997: René Taton
|
||||
1993: Christoph Scriba and Hans Wussing
|
||||
1989: Dirk Struik and Adolph P. Yushkevich
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
List of history awards
|
||||
List of mathematics awards
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
A Brief History of the Kenneth O. May Prize in the History of Mathematics
|
||||
BLC Newsletter August 2009
|
||||
Some files were not shown because too many files have changed in this diff Show More
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user