Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCharmantier, Ien_GB
dc.contributor.authorMüller-Wille, Sen_GB
dc.date.accessioned2012-07-31T15:54:58Zen_GB
dc.date.accessioned2013-03-20T14:13:12Z
dc.date.issued2011-11-20en_GB
dc.description.abstractNatural History can be seen as a discipline paradigmatically engaged in ‘data-driven research.’ Historians of early modern science have begun to emphasize its crucial role in the Scientific Revolution, and some observers of present day genomics see it as engaged in a return to natural history practices. A key concept that was developed to understand the dynamics of early modern natural history is that of ‘information overload.’ Taxonomic systems, rules of nomenclature, and technical terminologies were developed in botany and zoology to catch up with the ever increasing amount of information on hitherto unknown plant and animal species. In our contribution, we want to expand on this concept. After all, the same people who complain about information overload are usually the ones who contribute to it most significantly. In order to understand this complex relationship, we will turn to the annotation practices of the Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778). The very tools that Linnaeus developed to contain and reduce information overload, as we aim to demonstrate, facilitated a veritable information explosion that led to the emergence of a new research object in botany: the so-called ‘natural’ system.en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 43 (1), pp. 4 - 15en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.10.021en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10036/3680en_GB
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.subjectLinnaeusen_GB
dc.subjectInformation overloaden_GB
dc.subjectNatural historyen_GB
dc.subjectGenusen_GB
dc.subjectNatural systemen_GB
dc.subjectPaper technologiesen_GB
dc.titleNatural History and Information Overload: the Case of Linnaeusen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2012-07-31T15:54:58Zen_GB
dc.date.available2013-03-20T14:13:12Z
dc.identifier.issn1369-8486en_GB
dc.descriptionCopyright © 2012 Elsevier. NOTICE: This is the author’s version of a work accepted for publication by Elsevier. Changes resulting from the publishing process, including peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting and other quality control mechanisms, may not be reflected in this document.Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.10.021en_GB
dc.identifier.journalStudies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciencesen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record