Abstracts of the 1 st Joint National Vascular Meeting of The British Microcirculation Society The British Society for Cardiovascular Research The Royal Society of Medicine Forum on Angiology

1996 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 198-219
Keyword(s):  
Royal Society ◽  
British Society ◽  
Cardiovascular Research

British Society for Cardiovascular Research Meeting

2013 ◽  
pp. 16-17
Author(s):  
David Grieve ◽  
Barbara McDermott ◽  
Emma Robinson ◽  
Melanie Madhani
Keyword(s):  
British Society ◽  
Cardiovascular Research ◽  
Research Meeting

Introduction

1998 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 126-128
Author(s):  
J. V. FIELD ◽  
FRANK A. J. L. JAMES
Keyword(s):  
Royal Society ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
British Society ◽  
Art And Science ◽  
The Public ◽  
Interest In Science ◽  
Royal Institution ◽  
History Of ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
The Relationship

Art and science are both terms whose meanings have been subject to change over time. At the end of the twentieth century, the terms tend to be used antithetically. Current views of the relationship between the spheres of activity that they connote range from a sweeping dismissal of any connection to an opposing but less extreme conviction that scientists and artists have something in common. The latter belief apparently at least partly stems from an underlying feeling that at any one time both activities are, after all, products of a single culture. The woolly shade of C. P. Snow's idea of there being ‘two cultures’ in the Britain of the 1950s at once rises to view if one attempts to pursue analysis along these lines.In setting up a conference called ‘The Visual Culture of Art and Science from the Renaissance to the Present’ the organizing committee was not attempting to resolve any kind of debate that may be perceived to exist in regard to the separation or otherwise of the domains of art and science. Rather, we wished to bring together historians of science working on areas that are of interest to historians of art, and historians of art working on areas that are of interest to historians of science, as well as practising artists and scientists of the present time who show an interest in each others' fields. We were, of course, aware that this agenda raised questions in regard to present-day relationships between art and science, but we hoped that, as we were dealing with a range of historical periods, any light that was shed would be moderately illuminating rather than blindingly lurid. The meeting, which took place on 12–14 July 1995, mainly at the Royal Society in London, was organized jointly by the British Society for the History of Science, the Association of Art Historians and the Committee on the Public Understanding of Science (COPUS) – a joint committee of the Royal Institution, British Association and the Royal Society. The historical examples presented at the conference showed a wide variety of interactions between art and science. The success of the conference (it attracted an audience of about 200) suggested very strongly that art, which has a large public following, can be used to encourage an interest in science, whose public following, according to scientists, could be better.

Is Philosophy a ‘Theory of Everything’?

1992 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
pp. 219-231
Author(s):  
G. M. K. Hunt
Keyword(s):  
British Journal ◽  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Royal Society ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
British Society ◽  
Considerable Proportion ◽  
The Third ◽  
Theory Of Everything ◽  
Natural Scientists

When Wittgenstein moved from Manchester to Cambridge he was following a path from the study of the natural sciences to the study of philosophy which was then not unusual, and has since become increasingly common. Russell had preceded him in that intellectual emigration and many more were to follow. Of the three philosophy departments I have been in, two were headed by natural scientists (and the third by an historian). Both my research supervisors in philosophy were natural scientists (as I was myself). Less surprising, but still significant, a considerable proportion of Presidents of the British Society for the Philosophy of Science were originally trained as natural scientists. Yet it is a subject still unrecognized by the Royal Society. The editors of both the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science and the journal Analysis were both originally natural scientists. Eminent scientists seem to feel impelled to discuss there own subjects in a wider context of philosophy. Bohr, Schrodinger, Kilmister, Hoyle, Hawking and Penrose, are but a few from a long list.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document