Ancestry of Edward Joseph Larschan.

Larschan family tree reaching back to 1815

Bill of Joseph Jacobs for baking matzah

Digital image

Letter from Isaac Mendez Seixas to Joseph Simon

Digital image

Begging letter from Joseph Ben Joshua Netef Salit and application from minutes of trustees

Digital image

Letter of Reverend Joseph J. Pinto to K. K. S. I. announcing his intention to return to Europe

Digital image

Letter of Joseph Jessurun Pinto to Trustees of K. K. S. I.

Digital image

Letter of thanks to Joseph Rosen from the Ekaterinoslavskoe Evreĭskoe obshchevstvo po okazanii︠u︡ besplatnoĭ mediko-sanitornoĭ pomoshchi bedneĭshemu naselenii︠u︡ gorada Ekaterinoslava (EMSO)

Digital image

Letter of thanks to Joseph Rosen from the Ekaterinoslavskoe Evreĭskoe obshchevstvo po okazanii︠u︡ besplatnoĭ mediko-sanitornoĭ pomoshchi bedneĭshemu naselenii︠u︡ gorada Ekaterinoslava (EMSO)

Digital image

Letter of thanks to Joseph Rosen

Digital image

Letter of thanks to Joseph Rosen from the Ekaterinoslav community

Digital image

Letter of thanks to Joseph Rosen from the Ukrainian Jewish community, Kharkiv

Digital image

Correspondence with Mr. Joseph regarding organization of board

Digital image

Tiede ja tutkijan sosiaalinen vastuu : Joseph Ben-Davidin, Roger Sperryn ja Knut Erik Tranøyn käsitykset tieteestä ja tutkijan sosiaalisesta vastuusta

Science and the Scientist's Social Responsibility. Joseph Ben-David's, Roger Sperry's and Knut Erik Tranøy's Views of Science and the Scientist's Social Responsibility The aim of the study was to investigate, whether or not there is any connection between Jewish sociologist Joseph Ben-David's, American neuroscientist Roger Sperry's and Norwegian philosopher Knut Erik Tranøy's views of science and views of the scientist's social responsibility. The sources of information were their writings concerning this topic. Ben-David has a classical view of science. He thinks that the Mertonian norms of scientific activity, first written in 1942, are still valid in modern science. With the help of these norms Ben-David defends the view that science is morally neutral. Ben-David thinks that a scientist has a limited social responsibility. A scientist only reports on the new results, but he is not responsible for applying the results. In any case Ben-David's ideas are no longer valid. Sperry has a scientistic view of science. According to Sperry, science is the source of moral norms and also the best guide for moral action. The methods of natural sciences "show" how to solve moral problems. A scientist's personal views of science and social responsibility are not important. However Sperry's view is very problematic on the ethical side. Tranøy stresses the scientist's social responsibility. A scientist has common norms with the society from with he or she comes. This is why a scientist has the right, and also the responsibility, to discuss social and ethical questions between science and society. Tranøy's view has some ethical and practical problems, but it is valid in principle. Finally, Ben-David's, Sperry's and Tranøy's views of both science and the scientist's social responsibility have a connection: the view of science corresponds to the certain view of scientist's social responsibility. The result of this study is: Ben-David's, Sperry's and Tranøy's view of science have an ethical starting point as its fundamental presupposition, which include certain views of scientific knowledge, good and the scientist's ethical responsibilities. The connection between Ben-David's, Sperry's and Tranøy's views of science and views of the scientist's social responsibility means that their views of epistemology, meta-ethics and the scientist's ethical responsibilities have a connection to their views of the scientist's social responsibility. The results of this study can help the scientific community to organize the social responsibility of a scientist and deepen the conversation concerning the scientist's social responsibility.

Joseph A. Schumpeter's Theory of Social and Economic Evolution : a Reconstruction and Critique

The book presents a reconstruction, interpretation and critical evaluation of the Schumpeterian theoretical approach to socio-economic change. The analysis focuses on the problem of social evolution, on the interpretation of the innovation process and business cycles and, finally, on Schumpeter s optimistic neglect of ecological-environmental conditions as possible factors influencing social-economic change. The author investigates how the Schumpeterian approach describes the process of social and economic evolution, and how the logic of transformations is described, explained and understood in the Schumpeterian theory. The material of the study includes Schumpeter s works written after 1925, a related part of the commentary literature on these works, and a selected part of the related literature on the innovation process, technological transformations and the problem of long waves. Concerning the period after 1925, the Schumpeterian oeuvre is conceived and analysed as a more or less homogenous corpus of texts. The book is divided into 9 chapters. Chapters 1-2 describe the research problems and methods. Chapter 3 is an effort to provide a systematic reconstruction of Schumpeter's ideas concerning social and economic evolution. Chapters 4 and 5 focus their analysis on the innovation process. In Chapters 6 and 7 Schumpeter's theory of business cycles is examined. Chapter 8 evaluates Schumpeter's views concerning his relative neglect of ecological-environmental conditions as possible factors influencing social-economic change. Finally, chapter 9 draws the main conclusions.