Abstract
The ambivalence of scientific-technological progress has led in our century to a widespread criticism of science, especially of modern natural science.1 Moreover, the conclusions derived from this criticism have been manifold. They range from a radical rejection of science, as seen in the anti-science movement, to the demand for a science maximally comprehensive to society. Such criticism normally assumes that science simply is as it is, and that decisions are made about its benefit or harm to man only after it is put to use. Questions about a ‘different’ science are rarely raised, and remain tangential to a conceptual exposition. Thus, it comes as no surprise when the term ‘scientific’ is defined in the context of science as it presently exists. Whether or not sciences other than modern science are possible at all can scarcely be determined theoretically, but rather, perhaps, can be determined through the study of attempts at knowledge which in another era could lay claim to the status of science, such as the science of Plato (Böhme, 1976), or which, at least as a stumbling block within the history of modern science, proved themselves to be a possible candidate for an alternative science, as is the case with Goethe’s theory of colors. Only on the basis of such studies will the demands for an ‘alternative science’ attain some degree of substantiation.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Translated by Joseph Gray from ‘Ist Goethes Farbenlehre Wissenschaft?’, Studia Leibnitiana 9 (1977), 27–54; rpt. in the author’s Alternativen der Wissenschaft, Suhrkamp, Frankfürt an Main, 1980, pp. 123–153. The English translation is reprinted from Contemporary German Philosophy, ed. by D. E. Christensen, vol. 4, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1985, pp. 262–286, with the kind permission of Pennsylvania State University Press.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Bibliography
Böhme, G.: ‘Platons Theorie der exakten Wissenschaften’, Antike und Abendland 22 (1976) 40–53, now also in Böhme (1980).
Böhme, G.: Alternativen der Wissenschaft, Suhrkamp, Frankfürt a.M., 1980.
Heisenberg, W.:’ Die Goethesche und die Newtonsche Farbenlehre im Lichte der modernen Physik’, in Wandlungen in den Grundlagen der Naturwissenschaft, 7th edn.,Hirzel, 1947.
Kleinschneider, M.: Goethes Naturstudien, Bouvier, Bonn, 1971.
Newton, I.: Opticks, Dover, New York, 1952.
Ravetz, R.: ‘Criticisms of Science’, in Science, Technology and Society (ed. by J. Spiegel-Rosing and de S. Price), Sage, Beverly Hills, 1977.
Schmitz, H.: Goethes Altersdenken, Bouvier, Bonn, 1959.
Speiser, A.: ‘Goethes Farbenlehre’, in Die mathematische Denkweise, Rascher, Zürich, 1932.
Speiser, A.: ‘Goethes Farbenlehre’, in Goethe und die Wissenschaft, Klostermann, Frandfürt a.M, 1951.
Zajonc, A.: ‘Goethe’s Theory of Color and Scientific Intuition’, American Journal of Physics 44 (1976) 327–33.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1987 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Böhme, G. (1987). Is Goethe’s Theory of Color Science?. In: Amrine, F., Zucker, F.J., Wheeler, H. (eds) Goethe and the Sciences: A Reappraisal. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 97. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3761-1_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3761-1_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-277-2400-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-3761-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive