This essay argues that work on the history of women\'s ideas has been repeatedly written out of the multiple historiographical reviews of twentieth century intellectual history. By recovering that work, and the contexts and sites of its production, the essay offers a new perspective on the historiography of intellectual history in the twentieth century.

The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Technology marks the maturity of the philosophy of technology, which has lagged behind the history of technology as a distinct field. The book\'s thirty-two chapters span almost seven hundred pages, written by thirty-four authors from twelve countries. Shannon Vallor, professor of philosophy at University of Edinburgh, edited the volume and wrote its excellent introduction, which provides a historical framing that is largely absent from the rest of the volume. Although many of the remaining chapters are quite strong, the volume as a whole suffers from an unevenness that reflects the conceptual disunity of the field. Nevertheless, the volume shows the value of this field for historians of technology, especially as an alternative to the stale STS theories that many historians of technology draw on.

暂无摘要。

A trained physicist, Kurd Lasswitz (1848-1910) is best known as a novelist, the father of modern German science fiction, and as a historian of science, the initiator of the modern historiography of atomism. In the late 19th century, Lasswitz engaged in an intense dialogue with the emerging Marburg school of neo-Kantianism, contributing to shaping most of its defining tenets. By the end of the decade, this research had grown into a two-volume Geschichte der Atomistik (1890), which remains the most successful example of neo-Kantian historiography of science. Lasswitz combined attention to historical detail with the search for the intellectual tools (Denkmittel) without which the \'fact of science\' would be impossible. In particular, Lasswitz regarded Huygens\' kinetic atomism as a historical model of a successful scientific theory, shaped by the interplay of two conceptual tools: (a) substantiality, the requirement for identity of the subject of motion through time, which found its scientific expression in the extensive atom; (b) variability, the intensive tendency to continue in an instant, which found its conceptual fixation in the notion of \'differential\'. By raising the problem of individuality in physics, Lasswitz offers a unique perspective on the utilization of the history of science in 19th-century neo-Kantian thought.

This text presents the partial results of ongoing research into deafness in history teaching and historiography between 2015 and 2022. The study problematizes the place of disabled people in top-ranking periodicals (the top two categories in Brazil) and in pedagogical projects on degree courses in history (with and without teacher-training certification) at the University of São Paulo and the State University of Campinas. These universities were chosen because they topped the ranking in a survey conducted by Folha de S.Paulo newspaper. The study observes how the Brazilian Inclusion Law (law 13.146, of July 6, 2015) is incorporated into the initial training of these professionals.
O texto aponta resultados parciais de uma pesquisa em andamento sobre a surdez no ensino de história e na produção historiográfica entre 2015 e 2022. O trabalho problematiza o lugar da pessoa com deficiência nos periódicos A1 e A2 e nos projetos pedagógicos de cursos de graduação em história (formação de professores e pesquisadores) da Universidade de São Paulo e da Universidade Estadual de Campinas, por conta de serem indicadas como as mais bem posicionadas no ranking de uma pesquisa realizada pela Folha de S.Paulo, levando-se em conta os critérios de articulação entre a Lei Brasileira de Inclusão, lei 13.146, de 6 de julho de 2015, e a formação inicial desses profissionais.

Of Euclid\'s lost manuscripts, few have elicited as much scholarly attention as the Porisms, of which a couple of brief summaries by late-Antiquity commentators are extant. Despite the lack of textual sources, attempts at restoring the content of this absent volume became numerous in early-modern Europe, following the diffusion of ancient mathematical manuscripts preserved in the Arabic world. Later, one similar attempt was that of French geometer Michel Chasles (1793-1880). This paper investigates the historiographical tenets and practices involved in Chasles\' restoration of the porisms, as well as the philosophical and mathematical claims tentatively buttressed therewith. Echoes of the Quarrel of the Ancients and the Moderns, and of a long-standing debate on the authority and usefulness of the past, are shown to have decisively shaped Chasles\' enterprise-and, with it, his integration of mathematical and historical research.

This article investigates why Humboldtian Science, as a heuristic concept, has gained prominence in the historiography of science and requires clarification. It offers an ideal-type model of comparative research and exact measurements across vast spaces, which Susan F. Cannon and others tied to Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859). Yet, he himself was less \"Humboldtian\" than this concept suggests. The article proposes to disentangle Humboldtian Science from Humboldt\'s science, which constituted a set of individual research practices that defied the ideal of precision. Humboldt\'s science was often impromptu, marked by epistemological and personal insecurities, and embedded in the protagonist\'s peripatetic way of living and frequently erratic writing style. Historicizing Humboldt\'s science undermines the exceptionalism that elevates the Prussian savant above his contemporaries and casts him as a singular figure. This critical reflection encourages biographical approaches to the history of science, balancing heuristic generalizations and attention to individual research styles.

In this editorial the editor considers issues of historicity (understanding things in their historical context) in health professions education and the sciences thereof, and argues for more attention to historical and other contextual factors in creating and appraising the research literature.

暂无摘要。

Over the course of the past six decades, liver transplantation has evolved to become the treatment of choice for chronic end-stage liver disease and some cases of acute hepatic failure. Currently, more than 34,000 liver transplants are conducted worldwide per annum, and overall one year survival rates exceed 90%. However, the early years of human liver transplantation were beset by failure. Eyewitness reports from this period make for tragic, yet compelling reading. Volume 12 of The History of Anaesthesia Society Proceedings contains one such account, written by Dr Elizabeth Gibbs. This outlined the experience of single-handedly anaesthetising the recipient of the first liver transplant to be undertaken at Addenbrooke\'s Hospital, Cambridge, UK, in June 1967. Despite the best efforts of the team, the patient died from uncontrollable haemorrhage 19 hours after the start of the procedure. While this tragic outcome might have been expected in the early days of liver transplantation, Gibbs included an unsettling postscript in her paper. This stated that all of the patient\'s records had apparently been \'lost\', and the date of the first Cambridge liver transplant was publicly reported as 2 May 1968, some 11 months after the events described. This article outlines the results of research aimed at critically appraising this postscript. In doing so a number of unexpected discoveries were made. These highlight some important lessons for medical historians and demonstrate that if you look hard enough, there really are two sides to every story.