Keynote speakers: Daniel Garber (Princeton University), Rodolfo Garau (Ca’ Foscari University, Venice)

Venue: ICUB Humanities, 1 Dimitrie Brandza St., 060102, Bucharest, Romania.

It has been a long tradition that early career researchers and graduate students take part in the meetings of the Princeton-Bucharest Seminar in Early Modern Philosophy. To preserve this tradition, the Princeton-Bucharest Seminar has joined forces with the Bucharest Graduate Conference in Early Modern Philosophy, which has just reached its 9th edition! The Graduate Conference will take place on October 15-16, right after the Princeton Bucharest Seminar. Graduate students of both Master’s and PhD levels are encouraged to submit abstracts on any topic related to early modern philosophy by the 1^st of September 2022. Abstracts should not exceed 800 words. Each participant will be given 20 minutes to present their paper and another 20 minutes for a Q&A session (40 mins total). The program committee will notify authors of its decision by the 5^th of September.

Although we aim to organize the conference in person, a hybrid or an entirely online format remains a possibility, depending on the availability of the speakers to present in person. We will discuss presentation details with each speaker individually.

There is no participation fee. However, we are unable to cover any costs related to travel, accommodation etc.

Please send your abstracts and any other inquiries to bucharestgradconf@gmail.com

This event is organized as part of the Research Project ‘Recipes, Technologies and Experiments: Enactment and the Emergence of Modern Science’, PN-III-P4-ID-PCE-2020-0251. Participants are very welcome to attend both the Seminar (October 14-15) and the Graduate Conference (October 15-16). Stay tuned for more updates!

Update: Consult the conference programme!

Recipes, experiments and the new language(s) of natural philosophy in early modern Europe

Organized by Dana Jalobeanu and Oana Matei at the Research Institute of the University of Bucharest (ICUB-Humanities)

Invited speakers: Daniel Garber, Jennifer Rampling, Hiro Hirai, Vlad Alexandrescu

Speakers: Raffaella Derosa, Christoffer Basse Eriksen, Benjamin Goldberg, Claire Crignon, Oana Matei, Dana Jalobeanu

This will be an in-person meeting, at the ICUB-Humanities (Dimitrie Brandza str. 1, Bucharest, Romania). We aim to bring together historical and philosophical perspectives upon the origins of early modern experiments and the emergence of experimental philosophy.

For the conference programme click here.

20 month full-time job, postdoctoral position

The ICUB-Humanities, University of Bucharest is opening a full-time position for postdoctoral researcher within the framework of the project “Recipes, Technologies, Experiments: Enactment and the Emergence of Modern Science” (PN-III-P4-ID-PCE-2020-0251), PI Dana Jalobeanu.

Duration: 20 months.

Job description: The successful candidate will work with Dana Jalobeanu and her team in Bucharest. The purpose of the project is to investigate and understand the ways in which the traditional „recipe-format” was gradually transformed, during the seventeenth century, into ways of recording more similar with the „proper” scientific experiment. The successful candidate is expected to take full part in the online and face-to-face activities of the team, to work on a research theme of his/her own (for details see Recipes, ‘technologies’, experiments: Enactment and the emergence of modern science – Dana Jalobeanu) to help with organizing events and project administration. Working as a part of a small and integrated team of historians and philosophers of science will offer expertise and motivation for a future career in the field.

Requirements:

1. Applicants should have a PhD diploma on a topic that relates to the study of early modern thought or philosophy of science.

2. Applicants should have two year experience in research activities or in teaching in the academic field. Four year experience in other domains is acceptable. 

3. Applicants should already have a research profile or display a strong interest in a research career (documented by publications/submissions of papers for publication and by having taken part in research-related events, such as workshops, conferences etc.). All these must relate to the study of the early modern thought.

4. English, including the ability to read sixteenth and seventeenth century old books and manuscripts, at least basic notions of Latin. 

The application file will consist of two packages. The „scientific package” will contain: a CV (including a list of publications), a letter of intention and a sample writing. These will be sent by email to dana.jalobeanu@filosofie.unibuc.ro. The administrative package will be sent by email to concursuri@hr.unibuc.ro.  For the content of the administrative package consult https://unibuc.ro/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Continutul-dosarului-de-concurs-CS-III-CS-AS.pdf. For additional information send an email to: concursuri@hr.unibuc.ro.

Deadline: 28.04.2022

https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/jobs/736787
https://jobs.research.gov.ro/anunt.php?id=4870

Dana Jalobeanu și Gheorghe Ștefanov

Cursul se adresează studenților de la masteratul de Filosofie și gândire critică însă poate fi luat, în regim de curs opțional, de studenții de la oricare dintre masterele Facultății de filosofie (și de studenți de la alte mastere ale UB). Este un curs introductiv de filosofia științei, axat pe problema demarcației dintre știință și pseudo-științe. Scopul cursului este să discute diferitele formulări ale problemei demarcației, și diferitele soluții propuse pentru formularea unui criteriu de demarcație.

Cursul va fi desfășurat modular: primele 6 cursuri vor fi predate de Dana Jalobeanu, următoarele 7 de Gheorghe Ștefanov.  Forma de desfășurare: online

Curs 1 – joi 17 februarie (Dana Jalobeanu)  Știință, pseudo-știință, science-fiction.

O discuție despre concepte și categorii pe un studiu de caz. Cum se constituie „știința shakespereologiei” și teoriile conspiraționiste de tip „Bacon is Shakespeare”

Curs 2: joi 24 februarie (Dana Jalobeanu) Caracterul istoric al problemei demarcației. Teoria aristotelică a scientia și identificarea pseudo-științelor.

Studiu de caz: astrologia (și alte „științe vestigiale”)

Seminar (Gheorghe Ștefanov ): K.R. Popper despre criteriul de demarcație (Conjectures and refutations, și Curd and Cover) – în drop-box, I. Lakatos, Știință și pseudo-știință (în drop-box)

Curs 3: joi 3 martie (Dana Jalobeanu) Forme normative ale demarcației: teorie versus practici

Seminar (Dana Jalobeanu) Feleppa, Robert, 1990. “Kuhn, Popper, and the Normative Problem of Demarcation”, pp. 140–155 in Patrick Grim (ed.) Philosophy of Science and the Occult, 2^nd ed, Albany: State University of New York Press, (cartea se găsește în drop-box) Kuhn, T. Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?, in Grim (ed), 106-114 (sau Curd & Cover Philosophy of Science.,11-20)

Cursul 4: Joi 10 martie (Dana Jalobeanu) Criterii cumulative ale demarcației și tema bunelor practici. Studiu de caz: astrologia (2)

Seminar (Dana Jalobeanu): Thagard, P. Why Astrology is a Pseudo-science? In Curd, Cover, 27-38 (în drop-box), Michael Gordin, Vestigial sciences (cap.2 On the fringe) in drop-box

Suplimentar: Cap. 6 din Sciences and the Paranormal – astrology, moon effects, bioritm (în drop-box)

Cursul 5 (Dana Jalobeanu):  Joi 17 martie. Drumul către pseudo-știință.

Explicația și acumularea de dovezi explicative, rezistența pseudo-științelor la respingeri și strategiile de apărare (să punem la lucru ce-am învățat până acum de la Lakatos). Studiu de caz: Velikovski.

Seminar: Terence Hines (Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, Prometheus Books, 1988) (p. 228-233), Michael B. Gordin, The Pseudo-sciece wars, cap. 4 (cărțile se găsesc în drop-box)

Cursul 6 (Gheorghe Ștefanov): Joi 24 martie. Bune practici în activitatea științifică. Surse și credibilitatea surselor.

Seminar (Gheorghe Ștefanov). Studiu de caz – „(pseudo) științele paranormalului (Reality Check: Are the Sources Credible?” (pp. 51-64).Cap. 3 din Jonathan C. Smith)

Cursul 7 (Dana Jalobeanu): Joi 31 martie – Bune practici (2). Comunități științifice funcționale și comunități nefuncționale. Predatory vs. genuine în lumea lui „publish or perish”: cum ne dăm seama?

Studiu de caz: Royal Society for the Advancement of Learning. Prima societate științifică înființată în Europa, și singura cu o existență continuă de aproape 400 de ani. Găsiți aici câte ceva despre istoria ei și aici colecția ei de reviste (inclusiv primele numere din Philosophical trasactions, începând cu 1665).

Seminar (Dana Jalobeanu): Vom discuta despre bunele practici de funcționare ale Royal Society. Am pus în drop-box două articole de enciclopedie care să vă dea backgroundul istoric, carta de înființare a Royal Society și niște pagini din prima „Istorie” a RS (Thomas Sprat, History of the Royal Society).

Prin contrast, ne vom uita peste practicile numite „predatory” și asaltul imposturii. Puteți începe de aici.

Concluzii la prima parte a cursului:

O lucrare rezumativă și concluzivă: Thomas Nickles. The problem of demarcation: History and future, in Piggliuci, Philosophy of the pseudo-sciences (în Drop-box)

Cursul 8: Joi 7 aprilie (Gheorghe Ștefanov) – Cunoaștere științifică și cunoaștere comună

Seminar (Gheorghe Ștefanov): Ernst Nagel – Știința și simțul comun (în Dropbox)

Cursul 9 (Gheorghe Ștefanov): Joi 14 aprilie – Cunoaștere științifică și cunoaștere comună (continuare)

Seminar (Gheorghe Ștefanov): Gilbert Ryle – Lumea științei și lumea de fiecare zi (în Dropbox)

Vacanța de Paște

Cursul 10 (Gheorghe Ștefanov): Joi 5 mai – Pseudo-cunoaștere – studiu de caz (1): ghicitul viitorului

Seminar: Cicero – Despre divinație (Polirom, Iași, 1998), Cartea întâi, pp. 41-65, 81-114, și Cartea a doua, pp. 117-141 (cartea se găsește în Dropbox)

Cursul 11: Joi 12 mai  (Gheorghe Ștefanov) – Ghicitul viitorului (continuare)

Seminar: Cicero – Despre divinație (Polirom, Iași, 1998), Cartea a doua, pp. 141-181, 197-9

Cursul 12: Joi 19 mai (Gheorghe Ștefanov) – Pseudo-cunoaștere – studiu de caz (2): Medicina alternativă

Seminar: Terence Hines – Health and Nutrition Quackery (în Dropbox)

Opțional: Jonathan C. Smith – Energy Treatments and Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM), în Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal – A Critical Thinker’s Toolkit, pp. 269-283 (cartea se găsește în Dropbox)

Cursul 13: Joi 26 mai (Gheoghe Ștefanov) – Pseudo-cunoaștere – studiu de caz (3): Vindecarea prin credință

Seminar: Terence Hines – Faith Healing (în Dropbox)

Opțional: Jonathan C. Smith – Supernatural Cures and Faith Healing, în Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal – A Critical Thinker’s Toolkit, pp. 284-302 (cartea se găsește în Dropbox)

Dacă mai este timp: Terence Hines – Current Trends in Pseudoscience (în Dropbox)

---

ICUB-HUmanities, University of Bucharest.

First international colloquium of the research project Recipes, Technologies, Experiments: Enactment and the Emergence of Modern Science (PN-III-P4-ID-PCE-2020-0251). Online

18.11.2021

19:00- 19:20 Welcome Address

19:20-20:00 Arianna Borrelli (Leuphana University of Lünenburg) -Recipes as Tools for Concept Formation in the Work of Giovan Battista Della Porta

20:00-20:40 Dana Jalobeanu (University of Bucharest) – The “Missing Results” of Bacon’s Tables: Or Reading the Novum Organum in Context

19.11.2021

16:00-16:40 Stephen Clucas (Birkbeck University of London) – Going with the Alchemical Flow: Schematizing Laboratory Technique in the Late Sixteenth Century

16:40-17:20 Georgiana Hedesan (University of Oxford) – Between Incomplete and Philosophical Recipes: Deciphering Van Helmont’s Universal Medicines

17:20-18:00 Alexandru Liciu (University of Cambridge) – John Woodward’s “Test” of Observation and the Issue of Civil History

18:00-18:20 Break

18:20-19:00 Laura Georgescu (University of Groningen) – Philosophising with Objects: The Role of Artefacts in Digby’s Treatise on Body

19:00-19:40 Doina-Cristina Rusu (University of Groningen) – Distillations, Spirits, and Essences. Experimentation and Matter Theory in the Early Modern Period

19:40-20:20 Mihnea Dobre (University of Bucharest) – Constructing Experiments with Glass Drops in Jacques Rohault’s Natural Philosophy

26.11.2021

16:00-16:40 Florike Egmond (University of Leiden) – Cultivating’ the Sea and Reading its Signs: Marine Expertise of the 16th-Century North Sea

16:40-17:20 Benjamin Goldberg (University of Florida) – Concepts of Experience in Royalist Recipe Collections

17:20-17:40 Break

17:40-18-20 Iordan Avramov (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences) – Communicating Recipes and Experiments via Letters at the Early Royal Society of London

18:20-19:00 Oana Matei  (University of Bucharest, University of Vasile Goldis, Arad)- Building an Early Modern Science of Vegetation: Nehemiah Grew’s Inquiries into the “Anatomy of Plants”

In this seminar, Dana Jalobeanu invited us to explore one of  Francis Bacon’s lesser known texts, the Historia et inquisitio de animato et inanimato. Starting from the conditions for the apparition of animated bodies, („an enclosed spirit, heat attenuating and dilating the spirit, soft and sticky matter, and a matrix closed up for the right length of time”), Dana started an investigation into the proper place of the Historia et inquisitio in the broader context of Bacon’s corpus of texts, suggesting that it could provide a roadmap to Bacon’s unwritten 4th part of the Great Instauration.

Dana emphasized that, in this project of a systematic inquiry into the domain of animated matter, we find a convoluted, but technical, terminology (inquisitio as a more advanced part of inquiry than the mere historia; „inquisitio inartificialis et in confuso” vs. „inquisitio artificialis”). An important example of such a technical concept – on which we spent some time – are the „canones mobiles”,  i.e. flexible rules and generalizations that are evolving alongside the process of discovery (and which, as it was suggested by the audience, come from a medical tradition, for which the „canones” represent a series of rules agreed upon by the greatest physicians). The use of canones mobiles is relatively widespread in Bacon’s programme (for instance, in the De vijs mortis we are presented with such a canon: „anything that can be constantly fed, and by feeding be wholly restored, is, like the vestal flame, potentially everlasting”). The terminological discussion led to the question of how are such concepts to be organized and what can this tell us about Bacon’s programme of an experimental natural philosophy. Thus, Dana argued that we should distinguish between ”mother-histories” (the first level of inquiry) and the more advanced inquisitio (exploratory experimentation that can be done at different levels of inquiry). We also examined the theory of matter that underpins the discussion on vivification. For Bacon, „vivification” (the switch from inanimate to animate matter) occurs when the „spirits” that make up the matter are disposed in a specific structure (they are „branched”). What we obtain from this is a continuous taxonomy of the animated bodies, since this account also allows for degrees (some things are more „animated” than others). We took the discussion on step further and asked how is it possible for the artificer to produce artificial life in the laboratory. Dana showed that there are two possibilities on the table (controlling the process of „putrefaction” vs. controlling the matter), and then proposed to look closer at some steps towards the production of artificial life, such as the processes of concoction or of enclosed distillation.

The speaker also received a good number of relevant questions from the audience, such as: what is, in this context, the difference between imitating and perfecting nature? Is the whole universe animated, for Bacon? Can we divide the spirits? Can we produce better animals? What role do limit-cases play in the context of vivification (animals that live in extreme environments, deep ground that ceases to be fertile etc.)? Which sort of things can be vivified and which ultimately can not? (Can we vivify gold? How about Paracelsus’s homunculus? Why shouldn’t we try to reproduce it?) Is vivification related to density and rarity?

In this seminar, Oana Matei presented her work-in-progress related to the way in which Nehemiah Grew planned to build a science of vegetation, with a focus of his “The Anatomy of Plants”. Oana advanced her provisional thesis that the aim of Grew’s book is to organize different processes of nature into theoretical layers, i.e. in a science of vegetation. Thus, we found out that, for, Grew, “digestion is instrumental to fermentation”, while “fermentation is subservient to vegetation”. These notions, alongside some more details on the way that Grew speaks of generation and motion, gave rise to a discussion on the proper terms that we should use in relation to Grew. Some of us tended to see him as a serious experimentalist (indicating possible connection with Robert Hooke or the medical circle to which Grew belonged), while others emphasized  the vitalistic tone of some of his phrases, or even the bits that rather belong to a mechanical philosophy.

In this context, a number of interesting questions were put on the table. Are some of Grew’s notions of Helmontian influence? In which sense does Grew use the notion of „principles” (Nitrous, Acid, Alkaline, Marine, but he also claims that the atoms are „principles”)? Are they more than mere posits? Why did Grew write an anatomy of plants? To which theoretical level does the anatomy belong? Is Grew part of a larger discussion about the merits of the Ancients vs. the merits of the moderns? (is he engaging with the Hippocratic corpus on generation?). How does Grew reconciliate a physics of processes with geometrical observations (that you only see in an instance)? Is Grew involved in a project of creating artificial life? (and how radical was this?). What is, for him, the difference between biological and non-biological entities? How is Grew’s embryology looking like (how do the structures of pre-established order get intro the seed? Are they there to begin with?).

Oana Matei

John Beale (c. 1608-1683) was an early fellow of the Royal Society and a member of the Georgical Committee. On the subject of fruit tree cultivation and cider making Beale published Herefordshire Orchards (1657), “General Advertisements Concerning Cider,” as part of the collective volume of Pomona (1670), and also made important contributions to the Philosophical Transactions  in the 1660s and 1670s.

In Herefordshire Orchards Beale took some recipes from William Lawson and how he further tested them and tried to stabilize them in such a manner to ensure predictable results and to make a technology of cultivating the best apples for cider in the most suited soil.

William Lawson (1553/4-1635) was an English clergyman and writer on gardening who published only one book: A New Orchard and Garden, or, The Best Way for Planting, Grafting, and to Make Any Ground Good for a Rich Orchard (London: Richard Jackson, 1618). Apparently it was the first published book on gardening in the North of England, and its section The Countrie Housewifes Garden was the first  horticultural work written for women.

Lawson’s observations (as recorded by Beale):

“1. That the best way to plant a• Orchard were to turn the ground with a spade in February, and to se• from February till May, every month• some kernels of the best and sounde• apples, or peares &c. finger deep, as a foot distance: And by removing the rest (as time and occasion should advise) to leave the likeliest plant to reside in the naturall place unremoved. Ch. 7. pag. 17.

2. That the kernels of every apple would bring forth apples of the like kind. Chap. 7. pag. 18.

3. That by the leaves of each spiring plant you might distinguish each kind of fruit, whether delicate or harsh, &c. Ch. 7. pag. 18.

4. That trees thus raised might be preserved or continue for a thousand years, &c. Chap. 14. pag. 47.

5. That apples either grafted, or any time removed, could never be sound, durable, or otherwise perfect.” (HO, 1657, 14-15)

Although after a first reading Beale refuted all of them, he then “resolved to make exact triall with patience.” (HO, 1657, 16) and noted down, systematically, all the results that he obtained.

1. “By diligent enquiry the first Spring I found fourteen severall sorts of these naturall apples, the fruit much differing in tast, shape and colour; some only green and sowrish, some red-straked, some party-coloured, and very pleasant…I now find that the kernells of apples grafted on crab-stocks prove not all crabs, nor (as I guesse) altogether of the kind of that apple, whence the kernell was taken. (HO, 1657, 16-17)
2. Tis sure that kernells of the same apples, in a far differing soyl, do produce a different apple; but (as I said) still with some inclina∣tion to the originall, if it be the kernell of an ungrafted apple. And this may advertise the best season of designing variety; namely, in applica∣tion of choice compost to the very kernel, as Gab. Plat prescribeth Exp. 14. pag. 210. of the Additions to the excellent Legacy. All other stories, of powring liquors into the bark, or bulk of the tree, are effete and idle phansies, for nine dayes wonder. (HO, 1657, 18-19)
3. I find the truth, & that much more might be added to Lawsons rules, of distinguishing the hopeful∣nesse of the fruit by the first leaves of the yearling plant. (HO, 1657, 19)
4. For the incredible durance of apple-trees to a thousand years, I have upon much experience … ‘Tis certainly true (as Gabriel Plat in the foresaid place noteth,) that if a man aime at his present profit, then graffing is his way: but if he aime at the profit of his posterity, then it is best not to graft at all.  … Every aspiring Trunk of some of these naturall apples, is much more lasting than any grafted fruit-tree (HO, 1657, 20-21)
5. In a grafted plant every bow should be lopped, at the very tops, in apples and peares; not in cherries and plums. In a naturall plant, the bowes should not at all be lopped, but some taken off close to the trunk; that the root at first replantation be not engaged to maintain too many suckers. And this must be done with such discretion, that the top-branches be not too close together; for the naturall plant is apt to grow spiry, & thereby failes of fruitfulnesse. Therefore let the reserved branches be divided at a convenient roundnesse. The branches that are cut off, may be set, and will grow, but slowly. If the top prove spiry or the fruit unkind, then the due remedy must be in graffing.

Neither is graffing to be used only as a remedy. For it doth most certainly improve the kind of the fruit: insomuch that a graft of the same fruit doth meliorate the fruit, as is lately much observed by our Welsh neighbours, who do graffe the Gen∣net-moyle upon the same stock, and thereby obtain a larger apple, more juicy, and better for all uses: and some triplicate their graffings (for a curiosity) upon the same account.

And it is noted amongst us, that a pearmain or any other pleasant fruit either for cider, or the table, is much sweeter, if grafted upon the stock of a Gennet-moyle, or Kydoddin, than if grafted on a crab-stock; though much lesse lasting upon the stock of the Gennet-moyle: the Gennet-moyl being also lesse lasting, especially amongst us, where they are generally planted of large setlings, which must needs wound them in their very beginnings, and therefore hinder their duration.

Also graffing doth much precipitate, or at least expedite the reward, especially if the graffe be taken from a branch that hath some yeares constantly born sound fruit plentifully.” (HO, 1657, 23-25)

We can read Beale’s efforts as attempts to enact and test recipes, eliminate what does not work, propose a systematic approach to investigating the different steps in the cider-making procedure, i.e., building a cider-making technology.

Differences in respect to the recipe format:

-the lack of the imperative: “take that, do that….”

-many trials are presented altogether with both their good and bad results

-the stage of generalization is increased

In his trials, Beale was always asking why and how questions, but he has a bottom up oriented approach which starts from experiments that mainly produce fruits and ends up providing experiments of light. The technology of making cider reflects the transition from the knowledge entailed in old treatises as well as modern books of recipes but based essentially on descriptive accounts accompanied by a set of rules and practically-documented instructions, to a procedure stabilized as a result of repeated experimental attempts and that is able to lead to expected, predictable results.