(1984). Some methodological and historical considerations in low temperature physics: The case of superconductivity 1911–57. Annals of Science: Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 135-149.

How happy it is to recall Imre Lakatos. Now, fifteen years after his death, his intelligence, wit, generosity are vivid. In the Preface to the book of Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos, the editors wrote:... Lakatos was a man in search of rationality in all of its forms. He thought he had found it in the historical development of scientific knowledge, yet he also saw rationality endangered everywhere. To honor Lakatos is to honor his sharp and aggressive criticism as (...) well as his humane warmth and his quick wit. He was a person to love and to struggle with. The book before us carries old and new friends of that Lakatosian spirit further into the issues which he wanted to investigate. That the new friends include a dozen scientific, historical and philosophical scholars from Greece would have pleased Lakatos very much, and with an essay from China, he would have smiled all the more. But the key lies in the quality of these papers, and in the imaginative organization of the conference at Thessaloniki in summer 1986 which worked so well. (shrink)

In this paper we study some of the methodological problems associated with the development of the various theoretical schema devised to explain the phenomenon of superfluidity. The physical behaviour of supercooled helium defied explanation in terms of the known atomic laws for helium and their ‘natural’ extrapolations. We show that the basic conceptual difficulties involved were circumvented by the development of intermediate intermediaries through a process of contextual reinterpretation.

In this paper we attempt to investigate the historical and methodological aspects of the developments related to superfluid helium, concentrating on the period between 1941 and 1955. During this period, the various developments constituted a series of steps towards redefining and refining the two-fluid concept devised to explain the unexpected macroscopic behaviour of superfluid helium. The idea that superfluids are essentially ‘quantum structures on a macroscopic scale’ functioned as a heuristic principle which guided the theoretical physicists engaged in the above (...) research programme. (shrink)

Supraleitfähigkeit und Superfluidität sind die einzigen bekannten makroskopischen Quantenphänomene. Ihre Untersuchung liefert interessante Hinweise, um einige der Fragen zu verstehen, die mit den Grenzen der Gültigkeit der Quantenmechanik verbunden sind. In diesem Aufsatz wollen wir den Prozeß entzifferen, durch den ein beobachtetes unerwartetes Phänomen in ein physikalisches Problem übergeführt wird, und wir zeigen die kontinuierliche Reinterpretation der Begriffe, um eine zufriedenstellende Erklärung der Supraleitfähigkeit und Superfluidität zu erreichen.

The study of controversies is not only helpful for the further understanding of the subtleties of the theories involved, but it also contributes to the clarification of a series of issues related to the problem of theory choice. Discussions and disagreements — however heated — over two theories do not necessarily entail the features of what I would like to consider as controversies. This is especially so when there is a crucial experiment that can be performed in a relatively short (...) period. Controversies are disputes over theoretical issues, methodological questions, and not infrequently, philosophical positions. It is in this respect that controversies are also a quite suggestive probe into the conceptual framework of the various researches. (shrink)