Ateneo - UPO

Young Spallanzani's errors of science, method and communication

L. Spallanzani, Saggio di osservazioni microscopiche concernenti il sistema della generazione de’ signori di Needham e Buffon [1765], in Edizione Nazionale delle Opere, parte IV, vol. I, pp. 91-141.
Two books will be assigned by the teacher.

The course will put students in condition of knowing and comparing different historiographical approaches, complex problems in the history of science and early modern scientific texts (in original or critical edition). A more advanced goal will put students in condition of give clear and consistent communication of data, interpretations, opinions, autonomous elaboration of topics, contextualization of issues, ability to argue in debates with equals, written and oral communication (in clear and consistent form) of data and interpretations.

Basic knowledge of the history of science, as achieved attending the courses in History of Science I and II (Filosofia e Comunicazione).

Lectures and seminars; a proof in itinere; students' expositions on essays arranged with the teacher. At least a week before the exam, students will send written papers to the teacher. Oral and written expositions are compulsory.

Non-attening students will ask and receive supplementary bibliography to prepare and submit a supplementary written paper.

One proof in itinere. Oral exam.

The course will focus on the training path that led the young Lazzaro Spallanzani (1728-1799) from supporting to confuting spontaneous generation in his début work, Saggio di osservazioni microscopiche (1765). Particular attention will be paid to Spallanzani’s repeated “errors” in performing science and in communication strategies. As a matter of fact, he started trying to confirm John Turberville Needham’s (1713-1781) spontaneist system; contextually, he learnt classical texts of Galilean anti-spontaneist tradition, from which he “collected words” to express just his support to the opposite theory. Only at the end, he refuted it, getting through that peculiar dissociation between rhetoric, method and episteme: what, in many aspects, made his case unique in the modern history of life sciences.

Knowledge and comparison of different approaches in the history of science; comprehension of complex problems in early modern scientific texts (in original or critical edition). Clear and consistent communication of data, interpretations, opinions. Autonomous elaboration of topics; contextualisation of issues. Ability to argue in debates with equals. Written and oral communication (in clear and consistent form) of data and interpretations.