O estudo a seguir investiga as origens e o contexto histórico de um conceito historiográfico, a saber, a chamada tese do conflito entre a ciência e a religião. Segundo esta tese, a prática científica possuiria uma indisposição natural e recíproca para com as práticas religiosas, levando-as a um conflito inevitável e historicamente verificável. Os próceres dessa interpretação foram John William Draper (1811-1882), James Young Simpson (1811-1870) e Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), sobre o qual este trabalho se debruça. White foi, dentre os três, o único que ocupou cadeiras universitárias de ensino de História, sendo considerado um dos primeiros historiadores profissionais dos Estados Unidos da América. Ao longo de décadas elaborou uma série de artigos que, compilados, lhe renderam sua Magnum opus em dois volumes, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. A pesquisa se concentra em três eixos fundamentais: a) o contexto biográfico religioso de Andrew White, sua maturação filosófica e sua atuação como professor universitário, bem como o contexto histórico mundial e local no qual a obra foi produzida, rebuscando especialmente sua relação com a Universidade de Cornell; b) uma verticalização analítica dos conceitos históricos e epistemológicos empregados por White, procurando esquadrinhar as especificidades dos termos religião, ciência e teologia, bem como a retórica discursiva do autor; e finalmente c) uma apreciação histórica do desenvolvimento da Crítica Bíblica na Europa e nos Estados Unidos da América e de sua influência na obra de A. D. White. O trabalho revela de que forma o contexto político e mental do século XIX propiciou o surgimento de metáforas bélicas em diversos âmbitos, oferece razões históricas e sociais que explicam a origem do suposto conflito entre a ciência e a religião, apresenta um mapeamento conceitual da obra de White e a relevância da ascensão da Crítica Bíblica como um caminho para assegurar a secularização da prática científica. / The following study investigates the origins and the historical context of a historiographical concept, namely, the so called conflict thesis between science and religion. According to this thesis, scientific practice is endowed with a natural and mutual indisposition regarding religious practices, bringing them to an inevitable and historically verifiable conflict. The champions of this interpretation were John William Draper (1811-1882), James Young Simpson (1811-1870) and Andrew Dickson White (1838-1918), this work dwelling upon the latter. White was, among the three, the only one to occupy university chairs of History teaching, and is considered one of the first professional historians of the United States of America. Throughout decades he elaborated a series of articles that, after compilation, rendered his Magnum opus in two volumes, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. This research focuses in three fundamental axis: a) the religious biographical context of Andrew White, his philosophical maturation and his procedure as university professor, as well as the world and local historical context under which the work was yield, rummaging specially its relation to Cornell University; b) an analytical and vertical exposition of the historical and epistemological concepts employed by White, so as to scan the specificities of the terms religion, science and theology, as well as the discursive rhetoric of the author; and finally c) a historical appreciation of the development of Biblical Criticism in Europe and United States of America and its influence upon the work of A. D. White. The work reveals in which way the political and mental context of the 19th century propitiated the emergence of martial metaphors in diverse spheres, offers historical and social reasons that explain the origin of the supposed conflict between science and religion, presents a conceptual mapping of Whites work and the relevance of Biblical Criticism as a way to secure the secularization of the scientific practice.

A large agency of the Federal Government, three public institutions of higher learning, and two agents of State Government in the Commonwealth of Virginia launched a federally funded research and education consortium in 1962. The Virginia Associated Research Center (VARC) promised great success. The University of Virginia, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, and The College of William and Mary joined forces to provide the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Langley Research Center with a scientific research base and a graduate education program. The Commonwealth initially provided enthusiastic support from the Governor's office and from the State Council for Higher Education.;The three colleges agreed to cooperatively manage and operate the NASA Space Radiation Effects Laboratory on the Virginia Lower Peninsula. NASA funded the costs of operating the laboratory, gave the colleges research time for experiments and provided the colleges with large multidisciplinary grants. In return, the colleges were to set up graduate education programs for NASA employees. These graduate programs were to grant degrees from the respective institutions for course work taken at the VARC site on the Peninsula. The research function of the consortium proved to be more productive than the education function.;Certain criteria for successful and unsuccessful consortia were ascertained from the literature. VARC's characteristics were analyzed according to these specific criteria. The three institutions could not agree on how to operate the facility. Inherently weak governance structures in the consortium led to the failure of the venture; after only five years, the consortium dissolved. The Governor of Virginia placed the Center under the auspices of the college nearest the Peninsula, The College of William and Mary. Though unsuccessful as a consortium, VARC became a means to achievement for the three colleges. Each of the three gained stronger, more reputable physics departments and two of the institutions achieved modern university status. A qualitative analysis emerges as the consortium's operation and characteristics unfold through oral history. The study details circumstances which led to VARC's demise and simultaneously describes a key transitional period for The College of William and Mary in its three hundred year history.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

<p>Denna uppsats handlar om två opinionsbildare, Torgny Segerstedt och Torsten Fogelqvist och deras religiösa och politiska åsikter. Genom att göra en komprativ undersökning  försökte uppsatsen ge en så täckande bild som möjligt om vilken utstäckning Segerstedt och Fogelqvist tolkade facismen och nazismen som religiösa fenomen. Syftet med uppsatsen, förutom att försöka ge en täckande bild av deras tolkning av fascismen och nazismen som religilös fenomen, är att framlägga är hur deras religiösa bakgrund påverkade deras politiska uppfattning. Avgränsningen i uppsatsen har gjorts med hänsyn till tidsperiod och källmaterial. Tidsperioden är i stort från deras barndom till andra världskrigets slut. Och källmaterialet består av artikelsamlingar som har utgivits i bokform, sedan biografier och egna skrivna verk som används till uppsatsen. Metoden som används i uppsatsen är en komparativ undersökning mellan Segerstedt och Fogelqvist. Uppsatsen avser att analysera och få fram deras uppfattning särskilt när det gäller deras kristna perspektiv. Resultatet över undersökningsperioden var både Segerstedt och Fogelqvist med sina liknande bakgrunder och uppväxter påverkade av sina religiösa bakgrunder i sina texter och skrifter, fast på två olika sätt. Segerstedt skrev med och om bibliska uttryck samtidigt som han hämtade inspiration från sin religion, medan den andra opinionsbildaren Fogelqvist valde ett tema att skriva och det blev om religionen eller kulturer som han fick observera med tanke på sin religiösa bakgrund.</p>

This study situates Ptolemy’s philosophy within the second-century milieu of Middle Platonism and the nascent Aristotelian commentary tradition. It focuses on Ptolemy’s adaptation and application of Aristotle’s tripartite division of theoretical philosophy into the physical, mathematical, and theological. In Almagest 1.1, Ptolemy defines these three sciences, describes their relations and objects of study, and addresses their epistemic success. According to Ptolemy, physics and theology are conjectural, and mathematics alone yields knowledge. This claim is unprecedented in the history of ancient Greek philosophy. Ptolemy substantiates this claim by constructing and employing a scientific method consistent with it. In Almagest 1.1, after defining the theoretical sciences, Ptolemy adds that, while theology and physics are conjectural, mathematics can make a good guess at the nature of theological objects and contribute significantly to the study of physics. He puts this claim into practice in the remainder of his corpus by applying mathematics to theology and physics in order to produce results in these fields. After the introductory chapter, I present Ptolemy’s philosophy and practice of the three theoretical sciences. In Chapter 2, I examine how and why Ptolemy defines the sciences in Almagest 1.1. In Chapter 3, I further analyze how Ptolemy defines mathematical objects, how he describes the relationships between the tools and branches of mathematics, and whether he demonstrates in the Harmonics and Almagest that he believed mathematics yields sure and incontrovertible knowledge, as he claims in Almagest 1.1. In Chapter 4, I present Ptolemy’s natural philosophy. While in Chapter 2 I discuss his element theory, in Chapter 4 I focus on his physics of composite bodies: astrology, psychology, and cosmology as conveyed in the Tetrabiblos, On the Kritêrion, Harmonics, and Planetary Hypotheses. I do not devote a chapter to theology, as Ptolemy refers to this science only once in his corpus. Therefore, I limit my analysis of his definition and practice of theology to Chapter 2. In the concluding chapter, I discuss Ptolemy’s ethical motivation for studying mathematics. What emerges from this dissertation is a portrait of Ptolemy’s philosophy of science and the scientific method he employs consistently in his texts.

In this thesis, I examine the radical political views and activism of Thomas Beddoes, a late eighteenth century chemist and physician. A multifaceted man, Beddoes corresponded with many of Britains leading industrial and intellectual lights, especially members of the Lunar Society, had a brief career as an Oxford lecturer, devised air delivery apparatus with James Watt, and wrote extensively to distribute useful medical knowledge to the public and argue for medical reform, all the while attracting the ire of the government and scientific community for his outspoken, radical, republican politics. <br><br> I track Beddoes career as a Friend of Liberty, set within the context of the British reform movement, from 1792, when he began involving himself publicly in agitation, to 1797, when the death-knell of the British reform movement sounded and the French Revolution seemed to have utterly failed. In doing so, I seek to determine to what extent Beddoes was a radical, a revolutionary, and a fifth-column threat to the British, whether or not his ideology was in any regard the product of his science, and what the nature of his radicalism and the lineage of his ideas can tell us about the intellectual culture of his era. <br><br> I conclude that Beddoes fiery rhetoric belies an otherwise moderate and pacific approach to political change, based in British Enlightenment ideas rather than emerging science. The republic, rather than a goal to be achieved through violent overthrow, was simply the only logical organization for a society of innately equal citizens, a fact he believed obvious to the enlightened mind. He defended the French Revolution while he could still cast it as a moderate endeavor led by rational men, but, like so many of its early British supporters, grew disillusioned as France descended into mob violence and the tyranny of Robespierre. Following the Priestley Riots of 1791, he harboured deep fears of a sans-culotte-like British mob, which threatened not only the Church and King, but the interests and liberty of those men like Joseph Priestley and James Watt who were generating valuable knowledge and industry around him. <br><br> My analysis supports Roy Porters theory of a unique British Enlightenment, a social fermentation which emphasized Lockean personal liberty, improvement, and private property (which evolved into the laissez-faire economics of Adam Smith and David Hume), and which was, critically, defensive of liberties already gained. Beddoes constellation of political, religious, scientific, and economic influences reflect the characteristic Englishness of the enlightenment culture around him, distinct particularly from France, and helps illustrate the links between scientific and political ideas in the late Enlightenment.