Comparison of the research strategies of V. P. Goryachkin and D. D. Artsybashov in their works on agricultural mechanics in the second half of the 1900s - the first half of the 1910s

Markelov Stepan Avinerovich ORCID: 0009-0005-0416-3637 Postgraduate student; Department of Scientific Research, program 'History of Science and Technology'; St. Petersburg State University Senior Researcher; St. Petersburg GBUK 'GMGS' 198262, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Kirovsky district, 216 Stachek Ave., building 2, building 1 stepanipanic@yandex.ru

Introduction

The history of the pre-revolutionary science of the study of agricultural machinery (commonly referred to as agricultural mechanics) contains, in addition to the difficulties of formation, significant potential for comparative analysis of research strategies of various researchers and specialists. However, consideration of this issue runs into a certain barrier - there were so few specialists in agricultural mechanics at that time that they were generally perceived as a single force working together to create a general science. Because of this, the fact that the approaches of scientists of that time could contradict each other escapes the attention of researchers, and even if one specialist studied under another, this does not mean that he adopted his views and approaches or developed them.

There is a specific example of this problem. In modern works devoted to the history of agricultural mechanics in Russia, there is a statement with sufficient regularity that D. D. Artsybashev (1873-1942), the first head of the Bureau of Agricultural Mechanics at the Scientific Committee of the Ministry of Agriculture and a prominent specialist in this field, was a student, and one of the first, V. P. Goryachkin (1868-1935), rightly considered the father of agricultural mechanics in its truly scientific form. ^{[10, p. 79]}; ^{[16, p. 19-20]} [etc.]. Among the characteristics of the interaction between D. D. Artsybashev and V. P. Goryachkin, there are formulations about respect, common cause, cooperation, but all these statements still have a key weak point.: they remain declarative, unproven based on the materials of an objective study of the works of D. D. Artsybashev and V. P. Goryachkin. However, a simple comparison of the works does not seem to be sufficient. To confirm or refute these claims, it is necessary first of all to analyze not only their professional work, but also to analyze research strategies, primarily from 1905 to the 1910s, for the reason that it was during this period that agricultural mechanics in the Russian Empire was institutionalized as a full-fledged science. In 1907, Russia's first scientific institution for agricultural mechanization, the Bureau of Agricultural Mechanics, was established, which was headed by D. D. Artsybashev, and at the same time regular testing of machines began at the Moscow Agricultural Institute (MKHI) under the leadership of V. P. Goryachkin (who headed the Department of Agricultural Machinery of the Institute since 1896). This formulation of the problem determines the range of sources of this article. First of all, these are the works of the scientists themselves, relating to the specified time, in particular those where the classification of technology, its description and the grounds for study were carried out.

The historiography of this issue is limited due to the fact that no direct comparison of the views of V. P. Goryachkin and D. D. Artsybashev has been conducted before. However, since the article is devoted, among other things, to identifying the key principles that both authors adhered to in their scientific work, it is worth mentioning the historiography regarding the views of each of them. A number of scientific papers have been written about the activities of V. P. Goryachkin ^{[5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22]}, However, all of them reveal his research strategy mainly based on concrete examples. In this case, priority should be given to the work of agricultural mechanics specialists, since they are fundamentally better immersed in the issue, but it should also be borne in mind that they were mostly followers of V. P. Goryachkin's research traditions or his students (such as, for example, academician V.A. Zheligovsky), and they were not in this case the question is quite objective. The most comprehensive assessment is the opinion of A. A. Dubrovsky, expressed by him in his work on V.P. Goryachkin. A.A. Dubrovsky identified three key features in V.P. Goryachkin's works: "the ability to extract reliable facts using the simplest, but based on strict adherence to the principles of mechanics of experimental tools"; "a high culture of theoretical analysis of the experimental data obtained based on fundamental mechanical and mathematical training"; "a tendency to systematize, generalize and identify the mutual relationship between natural phenomena and technology, which he widely uses both when setting tasks and choosing ways to carry out research, and when summarizing the work done" ^{[12, pp. 22-23]}. However, these observations were not formulated strictly scientifically for the reason that they were outlined on the pages of a brochure on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of V. P. Goryachkin's death, being, as a result, part of a commemorative practice rather than scientific research. In addition, Soviet historiography maintained the position that a full-fledged science of agricultural machinery appeared only in the 1920s, and V. P. Goryachkin was able to implement his ambitious plans to create new agricultural machinery only after the revolution ^{[11, p. 5-6]}, therefore, much less attention was paid to pre-revolutionary work.

Not many works have been written about D. D. Artsybashev, despite the fact that in 1907 he became the head of the newly created Bureau of Agricultural Mechanics under the Scientific Committee of the Main Directorate of Land Management and Agriculture, and then the Ministry of Agriculture ^{[6, pp. 18-19]}. The reason for the lesser reflection of his works in historiography may be the fact that D. D. Artsybashev was a victim of political repression in the VASHNIL case, and since the tradition of researching the works of V. P. Goryachkin, as the founder of the national science of agricultural mechanics, originated in Soviet times, D. D. Artsybashev received attention later. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the works of D. D. Artsybashev are generally less often considered in the same detail as the works of V. P. Goryachkin. The fact is that while V. P. Goryachkin laid the foundations of the theory of agricultural mechanics, D. D. Artsybashev did not leave any equally profound theoretical work, although he was recognized as a serious specialist by both contemporaries and later researchers.

The methodological basis of the work is the historical and comparative method and the concept of a research or scientific strategy. A research (scientific) strategy is a concept characteristic rather of the humanities, and is a “comprehensively developed general plan for conducting research" ^{[4, p. 271]}. The difference between the research strategy and its methodology is that the strategic goals of research are not related to specific methods that are universal for science, but to the planning and management of research and the achievement of a common research goal, which, as a rule, is individual ^{[4, p. 274]}. At first, research strategies were identified, and, unlike previous studies of the work of V. P. Goryachkin and D. D. Artsybashev, they were brought to a common denominator. First, the authors' prerequisites for their research are highlighted - goal setting, theoretical foundations, the influence of other specialists, etc. This is followed by a review of the papers themselves, primarily from the point of view of the structure of reasoning. In the end, there is a review of the conclusions reached by the author. After that, a direct comparison of the research strategies of these scientists has already been carried out.

Formation environment

The first stage of reviewing the scientific work of the heroes of the article will be to study the environment in which the views of both scientists were formed.

V. P. Goryachkin did not come to his scientific views immediately. Initially, he was not involved in agricultural machinery, being a graduate of the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of Moscow University and the Imperial Moscow Technical School and a specialist in steam locomotives. He was offered to teach a course of lectures at the Moscow Agricultural Institute only in 1894, on the recommendation of his teacher, N.E. Zhukovsky. Before teaching, V. P. Goryachkin went on a business trip to Russia and Europe, which lasted a year and a half, from the spring of 1894 to the end of 1895. During this time, he came to two significant conclusions: about the need to reorganize production in order to put it on a scientific basis (since, according to his observations, ordinary craftsmen were often artisans, but people who were far from science, which caused the quality of production to suffer) and the lack of a rigorous scientific theory in modern European and Russian agricultural science and industry (the absence of rigorous calculations, specialized measuring instruments and a design school as such) ^{[13, p. 55]}, and this despite the fact that, according to him, According to the same remark, the science of agricultural implements has been developing in the West for 50 years ^{[7, p. 3]}. Since 1896, he has been a lecturer at the Moscow Agricultural Academy and the chief expert of exhibitions of agricultural machinery at the Butyrsky landfill ^{[17, p. 8]}, V. P. Goryachkin developed a special course on agricultural machinery and implements, wrote in 1898 a dissertation on plough dumps, “Dump: towards a graphical theory of ploughs" ^{[10, pp. 10-103]}, where he conducted a scientific classification of them, and trained new specialists and many future employees of the Bureau of Agricultural Mechanics. By 1905, V. P. Goryachkin had reached the status of an authoritative scientist and teacher with considerable practical experience, but who already looked at the question from the theoretical side.

D. D. Artsybashev's scientific and career path was somewhat different. After receiving his education at the Moscow Agricultural Institute (where V. P. Goryachkin taught his course, including D. D. Artsybashev), he taught at the Goretsky Vocational School, the first educational institution in the Russian Empire that trained specialists in agricultural engineering ^{[18, p. 3]}, after which, starting in 1901, he worked in The Scientific Committee, in which in 1907 he became the head of the Bureau of Agricultural Mechanics ^{[6, p. 19]}. It is characteristic that V.A. Zheligovsky, an academician of the Moscow Agricultural Institute, who began his career at the machine testing station at the Moscow Agricultural Institute, in his work on V. P. Goryachkin, without specifically mentioning D. D. Artsybashev, actively criticized the activities of the Bureau, mentioning that the descriptive agricultural machine science of that time acted in accordance with the needs of exclusively agronomists, ignoring the needs of engineers and designers ^{[16, pp. 13-14]}. By 1905, D. D. Artsybashev had achieved the status of one of the largest specialists in agricultural engineering of that time, who was invited to various meetings in government bodies at the ministerial level ^{[19, p. 21]}.

V. P. Goryachkin and his research strategy

The next stage is the identification of V. P. Goryachkin's research strategy.

V. P. Goryachkin's scientific priorities in the study of agricultural machinery can be traced quite clearly up to 1905, but in the test report of the Ministry of Agriculture for 1906 they are indicated from his understanding of the shortcomings in the modern science of agricultural machinery. First of all, he complains about the lack of a general classification of equipment and design data based on theoretical calculations ^{[7, p. 3]}. V. P. Goryachkin sees the reason for this in the fact that the methods, competition programs, measurement tools, etc. are not yet fully clear. ^{[7, p. 4]}. Thus, V. P. Goryachkin's goal–setting immediately becomes obvious - his task is not a simple description of technology, even for its effective use, but rather the construction of machines and tools, and on strict scientific principles. The criteria of scientific validity from the point of view of V. P. Goryachkin are indicated in the same report – the scientist lists what is missing for a truly scientific study: experimental data, theoretical calculations, test methods and programs, special devices built for specific tasks. Briefly stating the requirements for what V. P. Goryachkin would like to see as a research base, he points out that the testing station should become a "mechanical laboratory at the Department of Agricultural Mechanics" ^{[7, p. 4]}. Moreover, this station should become a place not only for testing, but also for development ^{[7, p. 5]}.

The influence of foreign science played a significant role in the formation of V. P. Goryachkin's research strategy. Expressing the opinion that experimental stations should be established at all educational institutions with courses in agricultural mechanics, V. P. Goryachkin refers to the opinion of the congress of agricultural machine operators in Liege in 1905, which V. P. Goryachkin attended ^{[7, p. 6]}. Thus, this is not an original idea, but a borrowed idea by V. P. Goryachkin, the significance of which was pointed out in historiography ^{[22, p. 11]}. V. A. Zheligovsky, who worked for a long time under V. P. Goryachkin, points out that nowhere else was this congress reflected in the works of V. P. Goryachkin ^{[16, p. 13]}. This statement is not true, especially since in the works about V. P. Goryachkin, this congress is rightly referred to as a turning point, after which he finally decided to promote his position regarding the organization of laboratories in mechanics. It can be assumed that V. P. Goryachkin heard at the congress what he had thought before and what he wanted to hear, since even before 1905 he considered agricultural machinery and implements from the point of view of mechanics, as in the above-mentioned dissertation "Dump ..." ^{[10, pp. 10-103]}.

The foreign influence can also be traced in the kind of literature used by V. P. Goryachkin. As mentioned earlier, V. P. Goryachkin recognized the existence in the West of at least a half-century tradition of scientific study of agricultural machinery. However, it should be emphasized that V. P. Goryachkin indicates specific works. In addition to the works of Austro-Hungarian specialists V. Tallmayer (professor of mechanical engineering at the Royal Hungarian Academy of Economics in Magyar) and E. Perels (Professor of mechanical Engineering at the Imperial and Royal University of Land Culture in Vienna), it is especially significant that he refers to the work "Essais dynamometriques des divers instruments de preparation du sol" ("Dynamometric tests of various devices for soil preparation") in 1876 by J. A. Granvoanne, Professor of rural engineering at the National School of Agriculture in Guignon. In French works of those years, other scientists criticized J. A. Grandvoine (mostly after his death) for applying mathematical methods and direct experiments to such an unsteady system as a plow, and pointed out that dynamometric studies of the plow constantly produce errors ^[23]. An example of such research is the report on the World's Fair in Paris in 1867, where J. A. Grandvoigne prepared a test report on agricultural machinery, including plows, using a dynamometer ^{[24, p. 82]}. At the same time, J. A. Granvoanne also paid attention to the economic efficiency of machines, arguing, for example, that "The actual cost per unit of work produced by a machine is the only criterion for its usefulness." ^{[24, p. 87]} In this context, it is appropriate to say that the work of Granvoanne and some other researchers were in many ways the predecessors of the work of V. P. Goryachkin, and thus to assert the complete novelty of his work within the framework of world science, as Soviet and modern researchers did ^{[17, p. 9]}; ^{[22, p. 12]}, would be an exaggeration.

The point of view on the issue is truly innovative in the works of V. P. Goryachkin, since the researcher does not just give a description of the structure of technology – there is a classical sequence of scientific knowledge, from experiment to theory, which was based on the precise definition of the work performed by technology and the study of it. V. P. Goryachkin used this strategy in his work "Dump...", but later he developed it into a research system that was applied to any type of agricultural machinery. The most important thing for him was to understand what kind of work machinery does, not in terms of its role in agricultural activities, but in terms of mechanical work. This led to the desire to identify the causes of certain decisions in terms of mechanics, ergonomics, operation, repair, and the impact on the efficiency of work. But the most important thing at this stage of his scientific and engineering activities for V. P. Goryachkin was the creation of devices for specific tasks or the theoretical justification of the need for their creation. Here are examples of his works/proposals from this period.: the creation of devices for measuring the width of plowing when working with traction moderators, since there was a contradiction between the importance of the task and the cost of effort ^{[7, p. 11]}; the requirement to study composite plows only with an already installed seat to increase the working time of the plowman and recreate the operating conditions ^{[8, p. 7]}; the study of the shape of the coulters, as a key a distinctive feature when working with ordinary seeders (the Van Brunt seeder had a stripe–shaped coulter, the Dowagiac seeder had a disc-shaped one, while the coulters were mounted on springs, while in Europe and Russia they are freely suspended) ^{[8, pp. 16-18]}. This approach is used in every work of V. P. Goryachkin of those years – the desire to clarify the basic principles through practical research, "revealing the mechanical essence", as formulated by V. A. Zheligovsky, which is especially difficult in relation to a continuous medium like soil ^{[22, p. 11]}, which is why, in fact, the predecessors of V. P. Goryachkin. Goryachkin and did not succeed in their endeavors.

Summing up the interim results, we can conclude that the essence of V. P. Goryachkin's research strategy was that agricultural mechanization should be a rational, controlled process, primarily in its very foundation, i.e. in design, since this is the core of V. P. Goryachkin's work – identifying the laws according to which agricultural machinery should be created.. V. P. Goryachkin's research strategy assumes, first of all, an explanation of the phenomena under study, i.e. first there is a collection of data and a scientific description of the phenomenon, followed by the formation of theoretical positions ^{[4, p. 273]}.

D. D. Artsybashev and his research strategy

Let us now turn to the work of D. D. Artsybashev. In our opinion, his work can be attributed to "descriptive machine science" according to the formulation of V. P. Goryachkin's student A. A. Dubrovsky. It was in these words that he characterized A. K. Eshliman's course at the Petrovsky Academy, which preceded V. P. Goryachkin's course at the Moscow Agricultural Institute: "an elementary story about the design of machines and tools, practical instructions on how to assemble and install them, on regulation and the simplest repairs, on the number of horses and workers necessary for their maintenance, on the cost and machine productivity" ^{[11, p. 13]}. In other words, the task of the textbook on agricultural implements and machines created by D. D. Artsybashev was, first of all, to give instructions on their operation. At the same time, the coverage of the work of tools is recognized by them as correct when it is based on the requirements and tasks of the specified branches of agricultural knowledge ^{[2, p. 1]}. Thus, the foundation of D. D. Artsybashev's teaching of the doctrine of machines and tools is not mechanics, but the principles of agronomic sciences. As an argument for the correctness of this approach, D. D. Artsybashev points out that studies of landfills led to results only when they were applied to the "life of the soil", and agriculture should go ahead of mechanics ^{[2, p. 2]}. It can be stated that this provision directly contradicts the principles of V. P. Goryachkin.

Of course, it should be noted that V. P. Goryachkin does have some influence on the works of D. D. Artsybashev. To understand its nature, let us turn, for example, to the problem of classifying plows. According to D. D. Artsybashev, the scientific classification of ploughs is possible only by the nature of the blade ^{[2, p. 4]}. D. D. Artsybashev's argument is that the essence of the plow's work lies precisely in the vertical rearrangement of soil particles, because it is the dump that puts into operation layers that are inaccessible during shallow processing. On the one hand, D. D. Artsybashev's classification fully follows V. P. Goryachkin's work "Dump...", which had already become classic at that time. On the other hand, firstly, D. D. Artsybashev interprets this as "disposal of soil capital", and not as mechanical work, and secondly, V. P. Goryachkin himself, at the same time, plows are no longer classified specifically by dump, but in a multiparameter table, by overall design, size and weight. ^[9], that is, from the point of view of mechanics. At the same time, V. P. Goryachkin wrote back in 1906 that science could not figure out the classification and work out the theoretical foundations without considering practice, and it was on this basis that V. P. Goryachkin developed a new classification. D. D. Artsybashev, in his work, although he used V. P. Goryachkin's classification, did not use the actual one, but an outdated work, reducing its presentation to a description of the plow mechanism in terms of its use on the farm.

In general, in the mentioned textbook, D. D. Artsybashev first sets out a brief history of a particular technique, then reveals the essence in relation to working with the earth, after which he disassembles them into their component parts and classifies them, analyzing the design. However, in the process of such an analysis, D. D. Artsybashev did not provide specific arguments for and against certain technical solutions, nor did he consider the mechanism as performing specific mechanical work from the point of view of mechanics theory (V. P. Goryachkin's approach).

Thus, D. D. Artsybashev's works described not so much the operation of the mechanism itself as the features of operation. Moreover, this installation determined their main tasks related to the convenience of equipment operators, which prioritized reliability over manufacturability. This approach was especially evident in his publications with reports on exhibitions, which D. D. Artsybashev made before the creation of the Bureau of Agricultural Mechanics in the official publication of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Agricultural Gazette. For example, in the review of the Orel reaping machine competition in No. 1 of the Agricultural Gazette for 1905, two important features can be identified in the description of D. D. Artsybashev. The first is how he describes the process of operation of the Elworthy reaper, which won the competition, and the second is to consider details such as the device for installing dumping on any rake. The work of the harvester is analyzed from the point of view of the mechanism performing the main work, mowing, with a description of the design and functioning of individual parts and assemblies, without delving into the mechanical essence of movement. Interestingly, D. D. Artsybashev's consideration of the work of technology is in many ways similar to that of, for example, the aforementioned J. A. Granvoinet, more than thirty years before, but without attempts to make measurements. As for the reset device, D. D. Artsybashev questions the need for this "counter", noting its exceptional fragility on American machines and pointing out that the Elworthy harvester without this counter provides even smoother running. At a later time, the American-style self-loading harvester became the standard for harvesters, however, it is significant that for the sake of reliability, D. D. Artsybashev proposed to abandon, as he himself admits, more user-friendly and technically advanced equipment in favor of a simpler and morally outdated version ("Elworthy harvester, built as it is known by the old Wood type"), even despite its high cost (the cost of the Elworthy reaper was 200 rubles, which, according to D. D. Artsybashev, is expensive) ^{[1, p. 8]}.

Given the specifics of exhibitions aimed primarily at potential buyers, such an assessment is not surprising, however, D. D. Artsybashev in this case does not seek an alternative in the form of a search for more reliable design solutions, but settles on a simpler, more reliable option. D. D. Artsybashev's research strategy, therefore, can be defined as deductive, according to which the researcher examines the subject through the prism of already existing, established methods and theory ^{[4, p. 272]}. The problem was not in his approach, but in the existing methods and theories of “descriptive machine learning” that D. D. Artsybashev applied, without creating new, more scientific approaches.In many ways, this is why academician V. A. Zheligovsky accused the Bureau of Agricultural Mechanics (in fact, D. D. Artsybashev himself) of not pursuing scientific objectives. However, we should be less critical and take into account the specifics of the tasks facing D. D. Artsybashev, first as an employee of the Scientific Committee, and then as the head of the Bureau of Agricultural Mechanics, whose tasks remained at that time not only purely scientific, but therefore by analogy with the concept of "mechanical essence", which V. A. Zheligovsky applied to the works of V. P. Goryachkin, in relation to the works of D. D. Artsybashev, the concept of "functional essence" should be introduced, in the study of which technology is considered not from the point of view of its mechanical operation, but from the point of view of visual functionality and the final result, i.e. this is "descriptive machine science".

The difference between the approaches of V. P. Goryachkin and D. D. Artsybashev is most clearly shown in the materials of the Izvestiya Bureau of Agricultural Mechanics, published since 1909. At this time, D. D. Artsybashev left for the administrative work of the Bureau, but remained at the scientific level of reviews and textbooks, while V. P. Goryachkin continued to create theoretical works. In the issues of Izvestia Bureau... for 1909-1910, D. D. Artsybashev is mentioned either as an author in review headings, which are a retelling rather than an independent creative work (as an example, a review of a traveling exhibition of a German village. University of Leipzig ^{[20, vol. 1, pp. 585-628]}) or minutes of meetings of the Bureau as its Chairman, primarily concerning issues of the entire industry. By the way, it is characteristic that the Bureau's own tests of agricultural machinery, organized under the leadership of D. D. Artsybashev, such as the 1912 test, were sometimes disorderly, the same machine was tested many times in different places ^{[13, p. 79]}. As for V. P. Goryachkin, he publishes in the Bureau's publication his theoretical calculations based on tests of technology, such as “Theory of harvesting machines" ^{[20, Vol. 1, pp. 313-359]}.

Results

Summing up, it is worth noting that although D. D. Artsybashev formally studied under V. P. Goryachkin, however, in reality, an analysis of their work during the institutionalization of agricultural mechanics as a science shows: They represented different approaches in the science of agricultural machinery. V. P. Goryachkin's approach is based on mechanics, primarily on understanding the very principle of operation of machinery, and also proceeds from the fact that the goal is to design new, more advanced agricultural machinery. V. P. Goryachkin approaches the issue as an engineer, actively striving to move to the theoretical level of understanding the issue. His research strategy involves explaining the phenomena under study and taking an active approach to solving theoretical issues. At the same time, D. D. Artsybashev adheres to the approach not of a theoretical scientist and engineer, but of an agronomist and an operator. For him, first of all, the impact of technology on the earth and how to apply this technique is important. In his work, the description plays a much bigger role than the explanation. That is, in essence, D. D. Artsybashev's research strategy remained deductive, but at the same time dependent on “descriptive machine science”, passive in the development or at least adoption of new methods, without an obvious desire to move from an empirical level to a theoretical one, but understandable to agronomists, farmers and other operators of technology.

The difference between V. P. Goryachkin's and D. D. Artsybashev's approaches was largely a reflection of the difference in the fields of agricultural technology science of those years. V. P. Goryachkin, being an engineer by training and a lecturer at a higher educational institution by profession, did not just teach; he actually re-developed the teaching of a scientific discipline that had been in a state of D. D. Artsybashev, coming from a background first of teaching in secondary specialized education, and then working in the Department of Agriculture, being primarily an agronomist by education, largely adhered to the very traditions of "descriptive machine learning" that V. P. Goryachkin criticized in his works.

Interpretation

In the context of modern research on the topic, this comparison must be taken into account for the reason that without it it is impossible to form an objective picture of the formation of agricultural mechanics in Russia during its institutionalization. The importance of comparing the approaches of V. P. Goryachkin and D. D. Artsybashev is revealed most qualitatively when considering the issue from the point of view of the actor-network theory (ANT) of the French philosopher, anthropologist and sociologist Bruno Latour. In his work “Science in Action ...” B. Latour introduces the concept of a “black box”, i.e. knowledge shared and not problematized by scientists in their work, an element of professional baggage common to scientists, acquired by them in the course of education and work in their field, “basic evidence” for scientists [Cit. according to 21, pp. 146-148]. Usually, “black boxes" are unreflected by scientists, however, Latour described as an example cases when this is not the case, and in particular when researchers from other fields are involved in the study ^{[21, p. 147]}. This is exactly the situation that happened to V. P. Goryachkin. But in his case, there was more than just interaction.: he completely changed his field of professional interest, immersed himself in the context of a new direction for himself and created his own “creative laboratory”, starting first with his works (such as the dissertation “Dump...") to open the established “black boxes” “descriptive machine science". And since laboratories, according to actor-network theory, create their own “black boxes”, V. P. Goryachkin eventually began to create new knowledge, applying the principles of mechanics to agricultural machinery, and a new environment around them (personnel, instruments, a machine testing station at the Ministry of Agriculture, etc.).

At the same time, D. D. Artsybashev, in his works on machine science during the period of institutionalization of agricultural mechanics, did not create new “black boxes”, new evidence, while maintaining the status quo in matters of methodology. Moreover, the identification of a “functional entity” instead of a “mechanical one” is a peculiar form of non-opening of an already established “black box”, because for the operator it does not matter how exactly the mechanism functions; as D. D. Artsybashev himself wrote, mechanics must follow the instructions of agronomy, i.e. agronomists, in fact, it does not matter what is in the “black box". in the box” of a plow, planter, or harvester, if the mechanism is doing the work. And when adapting the “black boxes” created by V. P. Goryachkin (for example, the classification of plough dumps), D. D. Artsybashev could not keep up with the creation of new, more relevant “black boxes”, and they represented for him an area in which his competence was limited – which effectively deprived him of the status of a scientist on agricultural mechanics, “throwing it out” of actual science. Following this path, it can be concluded that V. A. Zheligovsky's opinion that D. D. Artsybashev's activities during the leadership of the Bureau of Agricultural Mechanics did not pursue scientific objectives is correct in many ways because D. D. Artsybashev did not just adhere to the approach of an agronomist and an operator of machinery. He: firstly, in the course of his work, he did not create new “black boxes”, new evidence common to experts on the topic; secondly, he did not open the “black boxes” that had been established before him in “descriptive machine science”; thirdly, he did not fully understand those “black boxes", which began to take shape in science through the efforts of V. P. Goryachkin, which caused him to fall out of the scientific field of activity.

In other words, D. D. Artsybashev did not share either the approaches, opinions, or scientific determination of V. P. Goryachkin. This is obviously the main objection to the position that D. D. Artsybashev was a student of V. P. Goryachkin, and it also forces us to pay attention to how unified the science of agricultural mechanics was at that time.

The article is published in the version approved by the reviewers (after receiving a positive review recommending the manuscript for publication) with corrections made by the author (after receiving the editor’s comments, if any).
Read all reviews on this article