1. Dupree А. Н. History of American science: a field finds itself //Amer. Hist. Rev. 1966. V. 71. P. 863—874.
2. Cohen 1. B. Alexandre Koyre in America: some personal reminiscences // Hist, and Techn. 1987. V. 4. P. 55—70.3. Redondi P. // Hist, and Techn. 1987. V. 4.4. Westfall R. S. Science and patronage: Galileo and the telescope // Isis. 1985. V. 76. P. 11—30.5. Mikulinsky S. R. The metodological problems of the history of science // Proc. XIV Intern. Congr. of the History of Science. 1974. V. 3. P. 492—510.6. Rosenberg C. E. Woods or trees? Ideas and actors in history of science // Isis. 1988. V. 79. P. 565—570.7. Rosenberg C. E. Science in American society: a generation of historical debate // Isis. 1983. V. 74. P. 356—367.8. Raman V. V., Forman P. Why was it Schrodinger who developed De Broglie’s idease? // Hist. Stud. in the Physic. Sc. 1969. V. 1. P. 291—314.9. Heilbron I. L., Kuhn T. S. The genesis of the Bohr atom // Ibid. P. 211—290.10. Forman P. Alfred Lande and the anomalous Zeeman effect // Ibid. 1970. V. 2.11. Kuhn T. S. Historical structure of scientific discovery//Science. 1962. V. 136. P- 760—764.12. Heilbron J. L. A propos de I’invention de la bouteille de Leyde // Rev. Hist. Sc. 1966. T. 19. P. 133—142.13. Holmes L. Scientific writing and scientific discovery. History of Science Society Lecture // Isis. 1987. V. 78. P. 220—235.14. Foucault M. Naissance de la clinique. Paris, 1972; Цит. no англ, пер.: Idem. Birth of the clinic. N. Y., 1973.
Comments
No posts found