By Donald L. Opitz, Staffan Bergwik, Brigitte Van Tiggelen
The historical past of the trendy sciences has lengthy missed the importance of domesticity as a actual, social, and symbolic strength within the shaping of information creation. This e-book presents a welcome reorientation to our knowing of the making of the trendy sciences globally through emphasizing the centrality of domesticity in various clinical organisations.
Read or Download Domesticity in the Making of Modern Science PDF
Similar modern books
Modern Fourier: Transform Infrared Spectroscopy
This e-book is the newest addition to the great Analytical Chemistry sequence. The chapters are designed to provide the reader not just the knowledge of the fundamentals of infrared spectroscopy but in addition to offer principles on the right way to practice the approach in those various fields. when you consider that spectroscopy is the learn of the interplay of electromagnetic radiation with topic, the 1st chapters take care of the features, homes and absorption of electromagnetic radiation.
- Exploring the Territories of the United States (History of America)
- A Companion to Multiconfessionalism in the Early Modern World(Hardback) - 2011 Edition
- Neanderthals and modern humans
- Emile Durkheim (Key Sociologists)
- Modern Aspects of Solid State Chemistry
Extra resources for Domesticity in the Making of Modern Science
Sample text
1830) An Arrangement of British Plants (Birmingham), pp. xxxviii–ix, as quoted in E. Dolan (2008) Seeing Suffering in Women’s Literature of the Romantic Era (Aldershot: Ashgate), pp. 107–8. 5. M. Cavendish (1666) Observations on Experimental Philosophy (London) pp. 102–3; F. Harris (1997) ‘Living in the Neighbourhood of Science: Mary Evelyn, Margaret Cavendish and the Greshamites’, in L. Hunter and S. Hutton (eds) Women, Science and Medicine, 1500–1700: Mothers and Sisters of the Royal Society (Stroud: Sutton Publishing), p.
39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 37 also J. Dandy (1958) The Sloane Herbarium (London: Trustees of the British Museum), p. 210. McClain, Beaufort, p. 211; Series of letters from M. Somerset to H. 3, 5, 7, and 9. M. Somerset to H. 1. W. 44. The correspondent was likely James Petiver, FRS, a London apothecary. The list of contributors to the garden includes George London, gardener to William III, Robert Southwell, Richard Bradley, Samuel Doody, Henry Hyde, second Earl of Clarendon, and Mary’s brother-in-law, Captain Robert Knox.
236–9. Munroe, ‘Innocent Diversion’, pp. 120–1. Munroe, ‘Innocent Diversion’, p. 166; M. 142. For an example a list of errors, see M. 38. 1, which refers to an error in Parkinson, see the figure in Chambers, ‘Storys’, p. 51. M. 42. On Mary’s reclusive tendencies, see McClain, Beaufort, p. 118. S. Brown and J. Petiver (1701) ‘An Account of Part of a Collection of Curious Plants and Drugs, Lately Given to the Royal Society by the East India Company’, Philosophical Transactions, 22, 579–94: 579; M.