History of Knowhow as Knowledge

We explained by the combined Thomas S. Kuhn’s and Arnold Toynbee’s sense what ruined once proud scientists inside their collaboration at military-industrial-medicinal complexes. We mainly used the Central Europe as an example: also, to predict what must be done to rebuild the autonomous Voltaire’s Respublica literaria without Voltaire’s antisemitism. Our essay begins where obliviously any such study should start: when and where occurred the official westernized birth of history of science, technology, and the industrial heritage? Those three branches of the westernized history of knowledges are seen by Peter Burke as intellectual history (including traditional history of science), social history, and the anthropological cultural history: he neglected technology and industrial heritages as somewhat unacademic pursuits alienated from his sociology even if his criticism of westernized racist history of science is welcomed by his Jesuitical and Brazilian backgrounds. Burke’s innovation is his polyglotism: the older biased historians of sciences just never bothered to learn foreign languages needed to understand outlandish sciences overseas. The early westernized historians of sciences followed different destinies, but (almost) all made similar mistake by neglecting non-western and female contributions. Even J. Needham with his Chinese connections never seriously considered any possibility that the sciences might have non-western origins: by William Whewell’s initial definition, the science is something belonging to the westerners. That is the reason why the history of science cannot be reformed: to get rid of its racism, we need a new name, new branch of science, “the history of knowledge”. Nevertheless, it is important to find out when and where occurred the official westernized birth of history of knowledge? The first part of this essay proved that the development of physics can be embedded into the five steps modelled on Toynbee’s development of civilizations: with our universal research methods replacing Toynbee’s universal churches. We began the adaptations of Toynbee’s ideas to the history of sciences with the genesis of physical paradigms shaped by their timing and ethnicity: a special emphasis was put on the contributions to geneses of scientific paradigm gained by the alchemists, the authors of science fictions with their time machines, B. Hacquet’s crystallography, karstology, and the puzzled phlogiston. Our second part focuses on the transition from mechanical theory of heat within the classical westernized thermodynamics and kinetic atomism (T2) into statistical mechanics (T3): the scholars from the Habsburgian Monarchy contributed a lot to those beginnings of T3. Those Habsburgian experts are the most “domestic” for the American writer of these lines including their integration into the environment of modern Slovenia. By the Habsburgian case, we modelled the gradual feedback (aka return impact) of then relatively peripheral Habsburg geographical areas onto the original western mainstream which used to be the initial source of Habsburgian scientific (and musical) development: our mechanism described here resembles that of Toynbee’s impacts of external proletarians. Indeed, the Central-European Habsburgians were somehow external compared to the main western scientific Londoner or Parisian centres during the 17th century, probably even up to the early 19th century. We assume that all physical paradigms have evolved through the similar Toynbee’s stages, which he called growth, breakdown, disintegration through universalization, crisis, and revolution. To simplify our approach, we supposed that each paradigm belongs to a specific branch of physics, resembling Toynbee’s geography of civilizations before the modern globalizations. In addition, each state of the paradigm used a certain branch of the universal method(s) for its research. The physical paradigms and their individual states have at least seven different development parameters and properties: that make all those paradigms mutually comparable. The growth of paradigms with special focus put on thermal phenomena of T3 described by Brush’s census was illustrated by similar research of capillarity and cohesion with special emphasis on the pathological science as defined by Irving Langmuir. Van der Waals’ phase transitions enabled his linking the cohesion to the kinetic theory. While his fan Maxwell joined all physics except mechanics under the joint umbrella of electromagnetism, Van der Waals connected other previously separated fields of research. All those mergers soon paved the way for the greater union of modern physics personified by the quantum mechanics and its related relativity. The somewhat evil breakdown is the second of our five stages of the development of paradigms in physics, and maybe the most complicated of them all. We were particularly concerned with the development of research of heat. We had studied events at several levels, also by considering the less important works circulating among the Habsburgians. The other breakdowns involved the universal books and experiments like the Beijing electrophorus, the modern reality of complex numbers inside quantum mechanics or electrotechnical engineering. The third stages are universal paradigms with their universal methods. They were measured and compared, again relying on thermal phenomena and its related crystallography. We described the general principles of disintegration of paradigms in physics during their universalisations. We have found that the longer-lasting universal states belonged to those paradigms whose disintegration was not caused by their incompetence, but by their need to expand into new areas in a kind of blinded imperialism which also motivated ancient Roman armies, Napoleon, Hitler, modern warring USA, or the Germanized EU. Alexander the Great, the Iberian post-Reconquista Conquistadors, or the British Brutish Empire were also unable to stop their greedy expansionism absolved by racism. Their aggressiveness enabled their persistency. We investigated the similarities between the universal state of the old and the growth of the new paradigm in time and space in terms of the relationships between their universal research methods: the new paradigm buries the old one but accepts its universal research methods anyway. That makes research methods eternal and the most important entity, resembling A. Toynbee’s universal churches. That resemblance does not impose identity: the births of new universal research methods are approved and expected among the scientists while no new universal churches are welcomed by the priests of those already established. Evermore: a scientist might use several universal methods to reach the desired goal, while the multi-religiosity is rare except sporadically in the US, Sri Lanka, the Persian Bahá’í Faith’s essential worth of all religions, or among the Christian ecumenical movements. The disintegration as the third of the five stages of the development of paradigms enabled universal paradigms which promoted their universal research methods: the similar Islamisation accompanied the early 7th century Muslim conquests (الْفُتُوحَاتُ الإسْلَامِيَّة, al-Futūḥāt al-ʾIslāmiyya, Arabic conquests) or the Ottoman victories in 15th-17th centuries, while the Christianisation used to be a mighty tool of Reconquista, conquistadors, or the British and similar European Imperialists. The Sunni Muslim Saladin (1137/38-1193) traumatized the Shia Egyptians. But the polytheistic shamanistic Tengrism of Genghis Khan (Temüjin, c. 1162–1227) and his family was not reinforced by his extensive Mongol Empire which retained Nestorian Christians, Tantric Mahayanian Buddhist, Muslim, and other faiths. The areligious Han Chinese mostly tolerated different religions in Genghis Khan’s Mongolic manner. Genghis Khan’s self-imposed descendant the Sunni Muslim Timur (1336-1405) as Islamic sword of Turkic and Mongol descent shared a common ancestor with Genghis Khan to embrace Genghis Khan’s legacy as alleged Genghis Khan’s heir: but the religious tolerance beyond capacities of Timur’s sword. Marshall Goodwin Simms Hodgson’s (1922–1968) and William Hardy McNeill’s (1917 Vancouver–2016 Connecticut) alleged Islamic gunpowder empires the Ottoman (Sunni), Safavid (Shia) and the Mughal (Sunni and the combined Din-i Ilahi) were unusually stable but just partially religiously exclusive from mid-16th to the early 18th century. A. Toynbee’s fan and biographer McNeill supposed that contacts advance civilizations with enabled his rise of the West in 1963 followed by his criticism of Francis Fukuyama’s and J. Diamond’s Eurocentrism (Toynbee 12: 14, 600). Therefore, the Mongols, Han Chinese, and partly even the Ottomans used to be more tolerant than the others: similarly, after the Napoleonic downfall J. Fourier and his colleague across the Channel William Rowan Hamilton equally tolerated particles and their antagonistic waves, resembling Laplacian agnostic mentions of kinetic theory in the same breath with then caloric. Consequently, the eternal battles between the supporters of waves and their antagonistic fans of particles were resolved by mutual recognitions inside the quantum mechanics of French prince de Broglie halfway between disastrous WW1 and even more tragic Great Depression. That result did not follow just the westernized dialectical synthesis, but most of all the Chinese Yin-Yang dialectics where negation of a hypothesis necessary includes part of it. The Far Eastern wisdom and the aesthetic symmetries of the seemingly chaotic African settlements or the hairstyles quietly entered then modern physics, albeit in distorted European form: the theoretical foundations of quantum mechanics and relativity were German, Swiss, English, Danish, and French with almost nobody outside Europe included. Even if most

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.