The whig interpretation of history, which evaluates the past in terms of the present, is derided by the new historians of science. But their own anti-whig interpretation is priggish and fails to appreciate the temporal depth of scientific research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Russell, C. “Whigs and professionals” Nature 308, 777–778 (1984).
Kuhn, T. “The history of science” in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences Vol.14, 74–83 (Macmillan, New York, 1968).
Butterfield, H. in The Whig Interpretation of History 13, 12, 31–32 (Bell & Sons, London, 1968).
Brush, S.G. “Should the history of science be rated X?” Science 183, 1164–1172 (1974).
Butterfield, H. in The Whig Interpretation of History 19 (Bell & Sons, London, 1968).
Hull, D.L. “In defense of presentism,” Hist. Theor. 18, 1–15 (1979).
Butterfield, H. in The Whig Interpretation of History 16 (Bell & Sons, London, 1968).
Anon, “Social settlements” The Spectator 267–268, 19 Feb. 1898.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Harrison, E. Whigs, prigs and historians of science. Nature 329, 213–214 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1038/329213a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/329213a0
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
Dissolution of hypotheses in biochemistry: three case studies
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences (2016)
-
Immunology (1955–1975): The Natural Selection Theory, the Two Signal Hypothesis and Positive Repertoire Selection
Journal of the History of Biology (2012)
-
The myth of the non-Darwinian revolution
Biology & Philosophy (1990)
-
History in the chemistry curriculum
Interchange (1989)