With apologies for cross-posting,

Sandra Mols


*********************************


From: Brent Jesiek <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Fwd: Michael S. Mahoney
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, 24 July, 2008, 4:42 PM

Just received this sad news about the passing of Michael S. Mahoney, a 
fantastic
supporter of, and contributor to, the history of computing. I am very 
thankful
for having had the opportunity to work with Michael when he was a member 
of my
dissertation committee, and to have finally met him in person at last year's
SHOT meeting. Willard's tribute, copied below, helps convey why Michael 
was so
respected and valued as a scholar and person.

Brent

--
Brent K. Jesiek, Ph.D.


Begin forwarded message:

 > From: Humanist Discussion Group <[log in to unmask] 
<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>>
 > Date: July 24, 2008 10:29:49 AM GMT-04:00
 > To: [log in to unmask] 
<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
 > Subject: 22.137 Michael S. Mahoney
 > Reply-To: Humanist Discussion Group <[log in to unmask] 
<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>>
 >
 >              Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 22, No. 137.
 >      Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
 >                       www.princeton.edu/humanist/
 >                    Submit to: [log in to unmask] 
<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
 >
 >
 >
 >        Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:24:06 +0100
 >        From: Willard McCarty <[log in to unmask] 
<[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>>
 >        Subject: Michael S. Mahoney
 >
 > Dear colleagues,
 >
 > The great historian of science, mathematics, technology and computing,
 > Michael S. Mahoney, Professor of History at Princeton, died last night
 > after a severe heart-attack while swimming.
 >
 > Mike, as everyone knew him, was one of those very few for whom I would
 > have relinquished many of my years and the life that has come with
 > them in order to be his student. I first met him through his writings
 > while I was trying to figure out what relation humanities computing 
might have
 > to the experimental sciences. I could see that both kinds of practice
 > shared the epistemic use of equipment, so I figured there must be some
 > relation worth knowing about. Characteristically Mike put versions of
 > most of what he wrote online, so familiarity came easily, and some
 > understanding followed. Then I buckled down and worked my way through
 > papers such as the wonderful "Software as Science -- Science as
 > Software" (2002), which I must have read 5 or 6 times at the first go.
 > Then another historian of science, Jed Buchwald, an old friend and a
 > former student of Mike's and Thomas Kuhn's at Princeton, invited me to
 > give a paper at the Dibner Institute (MIT), at a conference on the
 > history of recent science. This gave me a chance to try out the
 > ideas I had formed, based largely on Mike's work, on the subject of 
humanities
 > computing and the sciences. Subsequently, as the paper was working its
 > way into print, Mike served as a reviewer, anonymous of course but
 > immediately recognizable. Put as simply as I can, his commentary on
 > that paper taught me how to do it right. Or, rather, as right as I am 
able.
 >
 > When I was asked to organize a year-long lecture series at King's
 > London, which I entitled 'Digital Scholarship, Digital Culture', Mike
 > was one of those I invited. His lecture, "The histories of
 > computing(s)", along with the rest were later published in
 > Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 30.2 (2005). Required reading for
 > everyone in humanities computing, I'd say, and I would extend the
 > invitation to all historians of any stripe. Faced with a hugely
 > intractable subject for the intellectual historian's craft, Mike had
 > the wit and wisdom to understand and the honesty to express what we 
cannot
 > say about computing. "The major problem", he wrote in 'Issues in the
 > history of computing', "is that we have lots of answers but very few
 > questions, lots of stories but no history, lots of things to do but no
 > sense of how to do them or in what order. Simply put, we don't yet
 > know what the history of computing is really about." This from 
someone who
 > knew the mathematical and technological bases of computing, how to
 > trace the many strands of computing's development and (as Siegfried
 > Zielinski has said) to look for the new in the old rather than the 
old in the
 > new.
 > "Hype hides history", he remarked in his King's lecture. He knew that
 > questions were the scholar's gold and that they were being obscured by
 > the promoter's (and the promoter's academic helper's) shameless
 > blather.He did more than anyone else I know to show us how we might 
find that
 > wealth.
 >
 > I cannot claim a long personal relationship. I wish I had been of the
 > right age at the right time and place for that to happen. But I can
 > hear the voice and see the face. I know more from him of what our 
kind can
 > do. Thank you, Mike. Farewell.
 >
 > Yours,
 > WM