UDC

167.7

DOI

10.37482/2227-6564-V034

Authors

Nina Yu. Ignatova
Nizhny Tagil Technological Institute (Branch) of the Ural Federal University named after the
first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin;
ul. Krasnogvardeyskaya 59, Nizhny Tagil, 622013, Russian Federation;
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0563-5422 e-mail: nina1316@yandex.ru
Sergey V. Dokuchaev
Nizhny Tagil Technological Institute (Branch) of the Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin;
ul. Krasnogvardeyskaya 59, Nizhny Tagil, 622013, Russian Federation;
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7903-2827 e-mail: dokuchaev-s-v@yandex.ru

Abstract

The theoretical basis for the approach used in this article is T. Kuhn’s version of social constructivism, according to which the subject of science is formed due to the languages of science. For the first time in Russian history of science, С. Bazerman’s approach was applied here, allowing us to reveal a set of scientific practices and languages of description that were used in the 18th century: a standardized description of facts in the common language of the scientific community; publication of the results in scientific journals, dictionaries and encyclopaedias; participation in scientific expeditions and educational trips; scientific correspondence. The authors of this article claim that the scientific practices and languages of description used by the Russian scientific communities in the 18th century were similar to those adopted by the scientific communities in Europe. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the use of these languages and practices allowed the amateur scientist (V.N. Tatishchev) to obtain significant scientific results. To do this, we identify the scientific practices and languages of description approved by the scientific community in 18th-century Russia and compare them to Tatishchev’s nonprofessional scientific and historical work. We conclude that turning to the accepted scientific practices, such as scientific expeditions, hypothetico-deductive method, and stepwise organization of research, allowed Tatishchev to arrive at important conclusions in palaeontology and geography. However, in spite of his work with historical sources (chronicles) and attempts to standardize the language of describing historical facts (his Lexicon), Tatishchev’s historical research lacks indisputable results, which fact we attribute to his insufficient knowledge of Latin – the language used by the scientific community of the 18th century to describe facts – and to his use of the methodology rejected by historians.

Keywords

social constructivism, historical epistemology, scientific practices, languages of science, scientific community, V.N. Tatishchev

References

1. Kuhn T.S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, 1962 (Russ. ed.: Kun T. Struktura nauchnykh revolyutsiy. Moscow, 2001. 606 p.).
2. Golinski J. Making Natural Knowledge. Constructivism and the History of Science. Chicago, 2005. 236 p.
3. Shipovalova L.V. Stoit li nauku myslit’ istoricheski [Should We Conceive Science Historically?]. Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki, 2017, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 18–28. DOI: 10.5840/eps20175112
4. Shapin S., Schaffer S. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton, 2011. 392 p.
5. Bazerman C. The Languages of Edison’s Light. Cambridge, 2002. 416 p.
6. Gunnarsson B.-L. (ed.). Languages of Science in the Eighteenth Century. Boston, 2011. 365 p.
7. Tolochko A. “Istoriya Rossiyskaya” Vasiliya Tatishcheva: istochniki i izvestiya [Russian History by Vasily Tatishchev: Sources and News]. Moscow, 2005. 544 p.
8. Azbelev S.N. V zashchitu truda Vasiliya Nikiticha Tatishcheva [In Defense of the Work of Vasily N. Tatishchev]. Sbornik Russkogo istoricheskogo obshchestva [Collected Papers of the Russian Historical Society]. Moscow, 2011. Vol. 11, pp. 316–324.
9. Fomin V.V. Strasti po Tatishchevu [Tatishchev Passion]. Istoricheskiy format, 2016, no. 1, pp. 55–72.
10. Rybakov S.V. V.N. Tatishchev v zerkale russkoy istoriografii [V.N. Tatishchev in the Mirror of Russian Historiography]. Voprosy istorii, 2007, no. 4, pp. 161–167.
11. Weber M. Nauka kak prizvanie i professiya [Science as a Vocation]. Weber M. Izbrannye proizvedeniya [Selected Works]. Moscow, 1990, pp. 707–735.
12. Tatishchev V.N. Russian History Dating Back to the Most Ancient Times. Vol. 1. Pt. 1. Moscow, 1768. 262 p. (in Russ.).
13. Tatischow B. Mamontova kost’ , hoc est ossa subterranea, fossilia, ingentia, ignoti animalis, e Siberia adferri coepta, duabus perillustrium atqve generosissimorum virorum literis, breviqve commentario dilucidata. 12 May 1725. Stockholm, 1725.
14. Tatischow B. Epistola ad Benzelium de mamontowa kost, i. e. de ossibus bestial Russis mamont dictal 12 mai 1725. Acta Literaria Sueciae Upsaliae publicata. Stockholm, 1729. Reprint Uppsala, J. H. Werner. Available at: https://www.alvin-portal.org/alvin/attachment/document/alvin-record:54154/ATTACHMENT-0001.pdf (accessed: 25 February 2020).
15. Tatischow B. Of the Bones of the Animal, Which the Russians Call Mamont. Acta Germanica, or The Literary Memoires of Germany &c. London, 1743, pp. 269–273.
16. Ignat’ev I.A. Iskopaemye rasteniya i “teoriya Potopa” [Fossil Plants and the Flood Theory]. Lethaea rossica. Rossiyskiy paleobotanicheskiy zhurnal, 2012, vol. 7, pp. 35–58.
17. Bogolyubova A.N., Shtokalo I.Z. (eds.). Istoriya mekhaniki v Rossii [The History of Mechanics in Russia]. Kiev, 1987. 392 p.
18. Tatishchev V.N. Selected Works. Leningrad, 1979. 464 p. (in Russ.).
19. Schlözer A.L. Obshchestvennaya i chastnaya zhizn’ Avgusta Lyudviga Shletsera, im samim opisannaya. Prebyvanie i sluzhba v Rossii ot 1761 do 1765 g. Izvestiya o togdashney russkoy literature [The Public and Private Life of Augustus Ludwig Schlözer Written by Him. The Life and Service in Russia from 1761 to 1765. Russian Literature of That Time]. St. Petersburg, 1875. Vol. 13. 532 p.
20. Tatishchev V.N. O kostyakh, kotorye iz zemli vykapyvayutsya, a osoblivo o tak imyanuemykh mamontovykh kostyakh. 20 dek. 1729. (V izlozhenii akademika I.G. Gmelina) [On the Bones That Are Dug Out of the Earth, Especially on the So-Called Mammoth Bones. December 20, 1729. (Presented by Member of the Saint Petersburg Academy of Sciences J.G. Gmelin)]. Istoricheskie, genealogicheskie i geograficheskie primechaniya na Vedomosti [Historical, Genealogical, and Geographical Annotations for Vedomosti]. 1730. Pt. 80, pp. 319–332; Pt. 81, pp. 323–326; Pt. 82, pp. 327–332; Pt. 83, pp. 333–336; Pt. 88, pp. 353–356; Pt. 89, pp. 357–360; Pt. 90, pp. 361–364; Pt. 91, pp. 365–368; Pt. 93, pp. 369–372.
21. Andreev A.I. Perepiska V.N. Tatishcheva za 1746–1750 gg. [V.N. Tatishchev’s Correspondence for 1746–1750]. Istoricheskiy arkhiv [Historical Archives]. Vol. 6. Moscow, 1951, pp. 245–314.
22. Tatishchev V.N. Zapiski. Pis’ma. 1717–1750 [Notes. Letters. 1717–1750]. Moscow, 1990. 436 p.
23. Kachin N.A. V.N. Tatishchev – proobraz pervogo rossiyskogo istorika [V.N. Tatishchev – the Prototype of the First Russian Historian]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Istoriya, 2014, no. 1, pp. 98–102.
24. Tsemenkova S.I. Dorevolyutsionnaya istoriografiya o V.N. Tatishcheve kak geografe [Pre-Revolutionary Historiography of V.N. Tatishchev as a Geographer]. Dokument. Arkhiv. Istoriya. Sovremennost’ [Document. Archive. History. Modernity]. Yekaterinburg, 2014, pp. 329–334.
25. Starodubtseva I.A., Alekseev A.S. Istoriya rossiyskoy paleontologii. V.N. Tatishchev (1686–1750) [History of Russian Paleontology. V.N. Tatishchev (1686–1750)]. Byulleten’ Moskovskogo obshchestva ispytateley prirody. Otdel geologicheskiy, 2015, vol. 90, no. 5, pp. 60–68.