Scientific Practices and Languages of Description in 18th-Century Russia (Exemplified by the Scientific Pursuits of V.N. Tatishchev)

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.