363
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
I. Chinnici, G. Consolmagno (eds.), Angelo Secchi and Nineteenth Century Science,
Historical & Cultural Astronomy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58384-2_21
Chapter 21
GATE (Gregorian Archives Texts Editing):
An Online Resource of Angelo Secchi
Correspondence
Lorenzo Mancini and Martín M. Morales
21.1 Angelo Secchi Observed in His Societal Context
Nowadays, Angelo Secchi’s contribution to science is widely appreciated (Chinnici
2019). However, no scientist today would cite Secchi’s scientific work except perhaps for a publication which used a historical series of data such as the solar observations, meteorology or climatology that Secchi collected during his life
(Sommervogel 1896, coll. 993–1031). Secchi’s publications are no longer a part of
current scientific discourse; not because they don’t use theories and methods traditionally used in science, but because of the nature of the scientific system.
The reason for this can be found in the primary function of science itself: to create new knowledge, knowledge always resulting from an observation starting with
a binary true/false (Corsi 2003). A piece of knowledge is true and it is a reference
point for those who do science as long as it is not contradicted or falsified. However,
it may happen at any time – and this seems to happen more and more rapidly nowadays – that a piece of knowledge can become untrue or no longer usable and is to be
replaced by another piece of knowledge. Truth is the means of communication
through which the system of science reproduces and legitimizes its existence.
Secchi’s publications cannot find a place within current scientific discourse because
they are no longer able to ‘make a difference’, to generate new knowledge. Today,
the Jesuit astronomer’s work can be only conceived of as an object for the study of
history and no longer of science. (The fact that those who deal with it are mostly
scientists with historical interests is another issue that will not be addressed here.)
Thus, today, publications about Secchi are part of the field of study called ‘history of science’, where the historical evolution of theories and the scientific method
is studied (Russo 1983). The ‘history of science’ – as with many other ‘history of’
L. Mancini (*) · M. M. Morales
Pontificia Università Gregoriana, Rome, Italy
e-mail: l.mancini@unigre.it; morales@unigre.it
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
I. Chinnici, G. Consolmagno (eds.), Angelo Secchi and Nineteenth Century Science,
Historical & Cultural Astronomy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58384-2_21
Chapter 21
GATE (Gregorian Archives Texts Editing):
An Online Resource of Angelo Secchi
Correspondence
Lorenzo Mancini and Martín M. Morales
21.1 Angelo Secchi Observed in His Societal Context
Nowadays, Angelo Secchi’s contribution to science is widely appreciated (Chinnici
2019). However, no scientist today would cite Secchi’s scientific work except perhaps for a publication which used a historical series of data such as the solar observations, meteorology or climatology that Secchi collected during his life
(Sommervogel 1896, coll. 993–1031). Secchi’s publications are no longer a part of
current scientific discourse; not because they don’t use theories and methods traditionally used in science, but because of the nature of the scientific system.
The reason for this can be found in the primary function of science itself: to create new knowledge, knowledge always resulting from an observation starting with
a binary true/false (Corsi 2003). A piece of knowledge is true and it is a reference
point for those who do science as long as it is not contradicted or falsified. However,
it may happen at any time – and this seems to happen more and more rapidly nowadays – that a piece of knowledge can become untrue or no longer usable and is to be
replaced by another piece of knowledge. Truth is the means of communication
through which the system of science reproduces and legitimizes its existence.
Secchi’s publications cannot find a place within current scientific discourse because
they are no longer able to ‘make a difference’, to generate new knowledge. Today,
the Jesuit astronomer’s work can be only conceived of as an object for the study of
history and no longer of science. (The fact that those who deal with it are mostly
scientists with historical interests is another issue that will not be addressed here.)
Thus, today, publications about Secchi are part of the field of study called ‘history of science’, where the historical evolution of theories and the scientific method
is studied (Russo 1983). The ‘history of science’ – as with many other ‘history of’
L. Mancini (*) · M. M. Morales
Pontificia Università Gregoriana, Rome, Italy
e-mail: l.mancini@unigre.it; morales@unigre.it