1. The reception of Ludwik Fleck's theory of thought styles and thought collectives in English
Paweł Jarnicki
Ludwik Fleck Zentrum
(Collegium Helveticum at ETHZ)
and Project Science Foundation (Poland)
CLMPS , Helsinki

2. The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 33, No. 17/18 (Aug. 13-27, 1936)
Fleck’s book written in the language of his contemporary science: Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache was noticed in annual bibliography in an important philosophical journal. Although it is possible that someone would have taken note of it, the most efficient method of disseminating information about books are reviews. And English became the language of post-war science. Fleck was aware of it and tried to publish his last paper Crisis in Science in 1960 to popularize the theory of thought styles and thought collectives in English. Unsuccessfully.

3. An important contribution to the history, psychology and sociology of scientific thinking which should be of great interest to biologists generally. By way of an analysis of the history of the syphilis concept and of the origin and gradual perfection of the Wassermann reaction the author shows that all scientific thought and discovery is rooted in the style of thinking which is dominant at the time, and that all important discoveries are the product of collective thinking and of collective analysis. The significance of the individual is not underestimated, but, historically speaking, the accumulation of facts as well as the shaping of scientific theories is brought about by team work and by the qualities of the team rather than of the individuals composing it. The work of the individual investigator is limited to a greater or lesser extent by the “style of thought” of his period.
And this is the only English review of Fleck’s German book - Walter Landauer’s one published in 1937 (June-July) in „Biological Abstracts”, in the section titled „Philosophy of biology”.

4. Hans Reichenbach proponent of logical empiricism
Emigrated from Germany in 1933 (to Turkey)
before his emigration to USA (1938) used to write in German
Experience and Prediction (1938) – first book written in English
The most important turned out to be one footnote in a book of a proponent of logical empiricism – Hans Reichenbach. There is one footnote in his Experience and Prediction, his first book written in English in 1938.

5. Footnote no 6 at page 224 contains reference to Fleck’s book.

6. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago 1962, s. vi-vii
„That is the sort of random exploration that the Society of Fellows permits, and only through it could I have encountered Ludwik Fleck’s almost unknown monograph, Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache (Basel, 1935); an essay that anticipates many of my own ideas. Together with a remark from another Junior Fellow, Francis X. Sutton, Flecks work made me realize that those ideas might require to be set in the sociology of the scientific community”.
We don’t know about any other reference to Fleck’s German book in English before Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In the Introduction to his book Kuhn admits that Fleck’s „almost unknown monograph [...] anticipates many of his ideas” and that these ideas „require to be set in the sociology of the scientific community”.

7. Reichenbach’s footnote 1960 Fleck’s unpublished paper
1935 Fleck’s German book
1938
Reichenbach’s footnote
1960
Fleck’s unpublished paper
So in 1935 the German book was published. In 1938 there was a Reichenbach’s footnote. And then in 1960 Fleck unsuccessfully tried to popularize his theory by an English article Crisis in Science. The article was rejected.

8. The Role of Discoveries in Social Sciences
1962
Kuhn’s introduction to Structure
1966
Baldamus
papers
1977
1979
American edition of the book
The Role of Discoveries in Social Sciences
And two years later probably the most popular book of 20-th century philosophy of science appeared. There is no reference to Fleck in the text, only in the Introduction. And probably because of the controversy about The Structure some people tried to find Fleck’s book, however it was still hard to find in the libraries. In the paper from 1966 titled The Role of Discoveries in Social Sciences, Wilhelm Baldamus mentions Fleck several times, but the first paper strictly on Fleck in English is his Ludwig Fleck and the Development of the Sociology of Science (published in 1977). It appeared in a volume collecting essays for Norbert Elias in Dutch sociological journal. Two years later American edition of Fleck’s book was published.
Before American translation appeared in 1979 there was just one review (of a different book) published by Gunther Stent in biological journal, in which the author devotes few pages to Fleck’s philosophy. Except Baldamus and Stent I don’t know about any other authors who would have written on Fleck in English before American translation appeared.
Ludwig Fleck and the Development of the Sociology of Science

9. Reviews of American edition
There are at least 18 longer or shorter reviews ( )
In sociological (4), on history of science (4), medical/biological (3), scientific (3) and other (6) journals.
Most of them are quite enthusiastic
And the main objection of Baldamus is that there is much more sociology in Fleck than in Kuhn. And the most important question raised by Baldamus is if we can read Fleck independently of Kuhn. And this question is still valid. Kuhn wrote the the preface to American edition of the book and this edition got at least 18 longer or shorter reviews in journals on history of science, sociology, biology and medicine, science and others. Most of them are enthusiastic.

10. from the reviews of American translation
remarkable little book
fascinating case study
work of transparent brilliance
the work of so remarkable a philosophical pioneer
foreshadowed much of the present-day sociology of scientific knowledge
forgotten masterpiece
This is not only a ‘remarkable little book’ and ‘fascinating case study’, but also a ‘work of transparent brilliance’, ‘the work of so remarkable philosophical pioneer’, the book that ‘was ahead of its time’, the book that ‘foreshadowed much of the present-day sociology of scientific knowledge’. It is a ‘forgotten masterpiece’ – a ‘profound and exhilarating book; [that] should be treated like […] a newly discovered novel, or painting, or piece of music, by an unknown master of the quality of Stendhal, or Vermeer, or Chopin’.

11. from the reviews of American translation
is certainly not without flaws
often disorganized text
a very difficult book to read. It is not well written
a flawed book; it is poorly organized and repetitious. Its empirical materials are a messy jumble
a stimulating and irritating book, abounding in original insights, glaring mistakes, and boring repetitions
Two or three of 18 reviews are critical. This is ‘a very difficult book to read. It is not well written’. It is ‘a flawed book; it is poorly organized and repetitious. Its empirical materials are a messy jumble’. But even those reviews, which are enthusiastic note that this book is ‘certainly not without flaws’, and the text is ‘often disorganized’. And those reviews, which are critical admit that it is ‘stimulating’ and ‘abounding in original insights’.

12. from the reviews of American translation
Fleck is less systematic in the presentation of his theory than Kuhn
a vastly more profound and provocative volume than Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions
All of these reviews are at least at small part on Kuhn
And author of an enthusiastic review admits that ‘Fleck is less systematic in the presentation of his theory than Kuhn’ but author of the most critical review wrote that this is a ‘vastly more profound and provocative volume than Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions’. What is common to all of these reviews is that they are not only on Fleck, they are on Kuhn as well. That’s why Baldamus question raised before American edition appeared is still actual, probably even more actual than before.

13. New English translations
1981
Fleck’s German paper
1986
Cohen & Schnelle volume (Polish papers)
1990
Loewy’s
volume (Polish papers)
New English translations
However Fleck wrote not only the book, around half of his philosophical legacy are papers (2 written in German and 9 in Polish).
In 1981 a paper translated from German appeared in one journal. And in 1986 a volume edited by Robert Cohen and Thomas Schnelle appeared. In the volume there are translations of most important Polish papers of Fleck. In 1990 Ilana Loewy edited next volume in which also some Polish papers are translated into English. The question is: have these volumes found a proper recognition?
Have these texts/volumes found a proper recognition?

14. The situation after edition of Cognition and Fact volume (1986)
Where do people writing on Fleck come from? (Poland, German speaking countries, English speaking countries, others)
How many texts of Fleck are they citing?
I’ve found approximately 170 papers on Fleck in English and tried to find who are the people writing on Fleck, where do they come from, how many texts are they citing?

15. Poland – c. 10% of all papers. 18% citing only the book
Poland – c. 10% of all papers. 18% citing only the book. (18% citing more than 3 texts).
English speaking countries – c. 32% of all papers. 70% citing only Fleck’s book. (22% citing more than 3 texts)
German speaking countries – c. 25% of all papers. 36% citing only the book. (45% citing more than 3 texts)
Other countries – c. 34% of all papers. 25% citing only the book. The highest concentration of papers citing more than 3 texts – 55%.
Very few authors from Poland are writing on Fleck in English. Although bibliography of Polish reception consists of nearly 200 entries, only 10% of English texts on Fleck are written by Polish authors. The concentration of texts citing only the book as well as those citing 3 or more texts is equal - 18%.
Nearly 70% of papers on Fleck in English is written by authors from non-English speaking countries. Only 32% of papers are written by authors from English speaking countries. The concentration of papers citing only the book is pretty high – 70%, and concentration of works citing 3 or more texts is 22%.
Nearly 25% of papers are written by authors from German speaking countries. The concentration of papers citing only the book is lower – 36%, and concentration of works citing 3 or more texts is higher - 45%.
34% of papers are written by authors from other countries. The concentration of papers citing only the book is 25%, and concentration of works citing 3 or more texts is the highest - 55%.

16. ‘directed perception’ – directed reception
The reception in English speaking countries is concentrated on the book only
Fleck is compared to Kuhn continuously (thought style to paradigm; thought collective to scientific community etc.)
Fleck „should rather inspire or provoke further investigations” but the tools that he used are out of date
Fleck is ancestor of sociology of scientific thinking
Why Kuhn not Fleck succeeded?
The reception of Fleck in English speaking countries is concentrated on the book only, so we should ask if this is a proper reception? Kuhn directed perception of Fleck – to use Fleck’s term – the latter is continuously compared to Kuhn, thought style to paradigm, thought collective to scientific community. The general rule is that Fleck ‘should rather inspire or provoke’ but the tools that he used are out of date’. And the main merit of Fleck is that he showed that cognition depends on society and culture. Fleck became an ancestor of sociology of scientific knowledge, and of some cultural studies and important representative of history of medicine. For many researchers a question – why Kuhn not Fleck was appreciated – is more interesting than the theory of thought styles and thought collectives itself.

17. volumes with Fleck’s papers
Coming back to the question if the second half of Fleck’s philosophical legacy (i.e. the papers) have found proper recognition we have to admit that especially in English speaking countries it did not. The reason of that is not only the fact that Thomas Kuhn did not write the preface to them. Both these volumes have a bit misleading titles.

18. volumes with Fleck’s papers
Cognition and Fact. Materials on Ludwik Fleck (1986).
The Polish School of Philosophy of Medicine. From Tytus Chałubiński to Ludwik Fleck (1990).
Cognition and Fact. Materials on Ludwik Fleck.
and
The Polish School of Philosophy of Medicine. From Tytus Chałubiński to Ludwik Fleck.
They had just a few reviews and its hard to guess from the titles that they contain Fleck’s papers.

19. it is difficult to conduct research on Fleck without the aid of indexes
indexes are impossible to develop because the translations of some terms are inconsistent
to make the terminology consistent we need to conduct research on his theory 1 2 3
But there is also another reason. The translations of Fleck’s texts were published in 3 different books. They were translated from two languages by different translators. This is not an accident that only the American translation of the book has an index of terms.
Reception of Fleck’s theory of thought styles and thought collectives is problematic: 1) it is difficult to conduct research on Fleck without the aid of indexes; 2) indexes are impossible to develop because the translations of some terms are inconsistent; 3) to make the terminology consistent we need to conduct research on his theory, which leads once again to problem 1). We find ourselves closed in a vicious circle. A philological analysis of Fleck’s philosophical writings would help to break this circle, an analysis that verifies the translations and compares the use of certain expressions in the Polish and in the German original texts, with the aim of checking which ‘equivalents’ were chosen by Fleck himself.

20. in which language Fleck’s theory is formulated?
Polish and German were his two ‘first’ languages and
he never self-translated but wrote original texts in Polish and German
more or less at the same time.
Until now nobody have asked in which language Fleck’s theory of thought styles and thought collectives is formulated? Polish and German were his two ‘first’ languages and he never self-translated but wrote original texts in Polish and German more or less at the same time.

21. the case of ‘communication’
Only 2 uses of equivalents of ‘communication’ in original texts
51 derivatives of ‘communication’ in English translations
To give you one illustrative example I have chosen the case of ‘communication’.
The fact that Fleck used derivatives of ‘communication’ in his Polish texts only two times may come something of a surprise to readers of Fleck in English, as the English translations of Fleck’s philosophical writings contain fifty-one references to ‘communication’ or its derivatives.

22. the case of ‘communication’
communication of thoughts
circulation of thoughts
Denkverkehr / Gedankenverkehr
krążenie myśli
The analysis of contexts and frequency shows that Polish expression ‘krążenie myśli’ and German expression ‘Denk-/Gedankenverkehr’ although not equivalent in accordance to lexical meaning denote the very same concept of Fleck. Polish and German translators also missed this ‘equivalence’.
So communication of thoughts and circulation of thoughts denote the very same concept. The main difference between these two English expressions is that communication assumes that 1) there exists somebody who have an intention to communicate and 2) what is communicated is something stable, something that does not change (conduit metaphor). And Fleck was trying to show that the circulation of thoughts is 1) a process independent from anybody’s intention, 2) thought develops, i.e. is changing constantly. To show that there are some rules of this development (and that these rules are independent from logic) was probably Fleck’s main aim.

23. Erkennentheorie teoria poznawania ‘theory of cognizing’
‘circulation of thoughts’
‘proto/pre-ideas’
‘passive/active couplings/connections’
In my opinion the reception is focused too much on the concepts of thought style and thought collective. Fleck called his theory also not ‘Erkenntnis-’ but ‘Erkennentheorie’, in Polish ‘teoria poznawania’ instead of ‘poznania’. If we would like to translate it literally it would be even not a ‘theory of cognition’ but (to express the imperfective aspect of this verbal noun) a ‘theory of cognizing’, a ‘comparative theory of cognizing’.
Many authors miss that Fleck used also some other interesting terms. Thoughts circulate, thought develops constantly and independently from individuals, proto- or pre-ideas are the stable elements, but not their content is this what is stable, but rather this what between them, ‘connections’ or ‘couplings’ (incorrectly translated as ‘associations’) that may be active or passive. So there is something more in Fleck than thought style and thought collective.

24. Thank you for your attention
This work is supported by the National Science Centre (Poland) under Grant number
DEC-2012/06/M/HS2/00313
and participation in the conference is partly supported by Collegium Helveticum at ETHZ