, Volume 80, Issue 1, pp 201–213 | Cite as

Finding the History and Philosophy of Science

  • Scott B. Weingart
Original Article


History of science and philosophy of science have experienced a somewhat turbulent relationship over the last century. At times it has been said that philosophy needs history, or that history needs philosophy. Very occasionally, something entirely new is said to need them both. Often, however, their relationship is seen as little more than a marriage of convenience. This article explores that marriage by analyzing the citations of over 7,000 historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science. The data reveal that a small but tightly-knit bridge does exist between the disciplines, and raises suggestions about how to understand that bridge in a more nuanced fashion.


Science Journal Latent Dirichlet Allocation Citation Count Bibliographic Coupling Citation Practice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research was funded in part by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. I would like to thank Katy Börner, Jutta Schickore, Vincent Larivière, K. Brad Wray, and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.


  1. Ardanuy, J., Urbano, C., & Quintana, L. (2009). A citation analysis of Catalan literary studies (1974–2003): Towards a bibliometrics of humanities studies in minority languages. Scientometrics, 81(2), 347–366. doi: 10.1007/s11192-008-2143-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bastian, M., Heynmann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: An Open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In Presented at the international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media. Retrieved from
  3. Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022.Google Scholar
  4. Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389–2404. doi: 10.1002/asi.21419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burian, R. M. (1977). More than a marriage of convenience: On the inextricability of history and philosophy of science. Philosophy of Science, 44(1), 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Culnan, M. J. (1987). Mapping the intellectual structure of MIS, 1980–1985: A co-citation analysis. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 341–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Feigl, H. (1970). Beyond peaceful coexistence. In Historical and philosophical perspectives of science (pp. 3–11). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  8. Galison, P. (2008). Ten problems in history and philosophy of science. Isis, 99(1), 111–124. doi: 10.1086/587536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178(60), 471–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1(4), 359–375. doi: 10.1007/BF02019306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Giere, R. N. (1973). History and philosophy of science: Intimate relationship or marriage of convenience? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 24(3), 282–297. doi: 10.1093/bjps/24.3.282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanson, N. R. (1962). The irrelevance of history of science to philosophy of science to philosophy of science. The Journal of Philosophy, 59(21), 574–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hérubel, J.-P. V. M. (1994). Citation studies in the humanities and social sciences. Collection Management, 18(3–4), 89–137. doi: 10.1300/J105v18n03_06.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jardine, N. (2009). Philosophy of history of science. In A. Tucker (Ed.) A companion to the philosophy of history and historiography (pp. 285–296). New York: Wiley. Retrieved from
  15. Kant, I. (1781). Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Riga: Johann Friedrich Hartknoch.Google Scholar
  16. Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14(1), 10–25. doi: 10.1002/asi.5090140103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Knievel, J. E., & Kellsey, C. (2005). Citation analysis for collection development: A comparative study of eight humanities fields. The Library Quarterly, 75(2), 142–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koyre, A. (1955). Influence of philosophic trends on the formulation of scientific theories. The Scientific Monthly, 80(2), 107–111.Google Scholar
  19. Laudan, R. (1992). The “new” history of science: Implications for philosophy of science. In PSA: Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association (pp. 476–481).Google Scholar
  20. Laudan, L., Donovan, A., Laudan, R., Barker, P., Brown, H., Leplin, J., et al. (1986). Scientific change: Philosophical models and historical research. Synthese, 69(2), 141–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCain, K. W. (1989). Mapping authors in intellectual space. Communication Research, 16(5), 667–681. doi: 10.1177/009365089016005007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McMullin, E. (1974). History and philosophy of science: A marriage of convenience? In PSA: Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association (pp. 585–601).Google Scholar
  23. Phelan, T. J. (1999). A compendium of issues for citation analysis. Scientometrics, 45(1), 117–136. doi: 10.1007/BF02458472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction an analysis of the foundations and structure of knowledge.Google Scholar
  25. Richards, R. J. (1992). Arguments in a sartorial mode, or the asymmetries of history and philosophy of science. In PSA: Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association (pp. 482–489).Google Scholar
  26. Richardson, A. W. (2008). Scientific philosophy as a topic for history of science. Isis, 99(1), 88–96. doi: 10.1086/587534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Salmon, W. C. (1963). Logic. The University of California: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Sci2 Team. (2009). Science of science (Sci2) tool. Indiana University and SciTech Strategies. Retrieved from
  29. Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smocovitis, V. B. (1994). Contextualizing science: From science studies to cultural studies. In PSA: Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association (pp. 402–412).Google Scholar
  31. Thompson, J. W. (2002). The death of the Scholarly monograph in the humanities? Citation patterns in literary scholarship. Libri, 52(3), 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Weingart, S. B., Guo, H., Börner, K., Boyack, K. W., Linnemeier, M. W., & Duhon, R. J. (2011). Science of science (Sci2) tool user manual. Retrieved from
  33. Wray, K. B. (2010). Philosophy of science: What are the key journals in the field? Erkenntnis, 72(3), 423–430. doi: 10.1007/s10670-010-9214-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wylie, A. (1994). Discourse, practice, context: From HPS to interdisciplinary science studies. In PSA: Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association (pp. 393–395).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dietrich College of Humanities and Social SciencesCarnegie Mellon UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.School of Informatics and ComputingIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations