The History and Philosophy of Science History

Chapter
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 263)

Abstract

Past science is studied from two perspectives. The intellectual history of science, which focuses on the development of ideas and arguments, and the social history of science, which focuses on the development of science as a social undertaking within its broader contexts, are both alive in the academy. Nevertheless, these two approaches do not interact very well, and the field of science history is bifurcated along these lines. Indeed, intellectual and cultural historians of science tend, basically, to ignore one another. They have different training, different aims, different audiences, and often different institutional homes. Intellectual historians of science tend to be conversant with philosophers, social historians of science associate with mainstream historians, but they do not often discourse with each other. In turn, this has led to remarkable naïveté on each side regarding the work of science historians across the disciplinary fence.

Keywords

Scientific Revolution Intellectual Historian Science History Human Practice Logical Positivist 
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.

References

  1. Baltas, Aristides. 1994. “On the Harmful Effects of Excessive Anti-Whiggism.” In Trends in the Historiography of Science, edited by Kostas Gavroglou, Jean Christianidis and Efthymios Nicolaidis, 107–19. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, Barry. 1990. “Sociological Theories of Scientific Knowledge.” In Companion to the History of Modern Science, edited by R.C. Olby, G.N. Cantor, J.R.R. Christie and M.J.S. Hodge, 60–73. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, J.A. 1997. “Museums and the Establishment of the History of Science at Oxford and Cambridge.” British Journal for the History of Science 30: 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burian, Richard M. 1977. “More than a Marriage of Convenience: On the Inextricability of History and Philosophy of Science.” Philosophy of Science 44: 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burian, Richard M. 2003. “Comments on the Precarious Relationship between History and Philosophy of Science.” Perspectives on Science 10: 398–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang, Hasok. 2004. Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christie, John R.R. 1990. “The Development of the Historiography of Science.” In Companion to the History of Modern Science, edited by R.C. Olby, G.N. Cantor, J.R.R. Christie and M.J.S. Hodge, 5–22. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, H. Floris. 1994. The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, I. Bernard. 1984. “A Harvard Education.” Isis 75: 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Domski, Mary, and Michael Dickson. 2010. “Discourse on a New Method, or a Manifesto for a Synthetic Approach to History and Philosophy of Science.” In Discourse on a New Method: Reinvigorating the Marriage of History and Philosophy of Science, edited by Mary Domski and Michael Dickson, 1–20. Chicago-LaSalle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  11. Feigl, Herbert. 1970. “Beyond Peaceful Coexistence.” In Historical and Philosophical Perspectives of Science, edited by Roger H. Stuewer, 3–11. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  12. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1970. “Philosophy of Science: A Subject with a Great Past.” In Historical and Philosophical Perspectives of Science, edited by Roger H. Stuewer, 172–83. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  13. Galison, Peter. 1987. How Experiments End. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Guerlac, Henry. 1977. Essays and Papers in the History of Modern Science. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hall, Rupert A. 1984. “Beginnings in Cambridge.” Isis 75: 22–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanson, Norwood Russell. 1962. “The Irrelevance of History of Science to Philosophy of Science.” Journal of Philosophy 59: 574–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hesse, Mary. 1970. “Hermeticism and Historiography: An Apology for the Internal History of Science.” In Historical and Philosophical Perspectives of Science, edited by Roger H. Stuewer, 134–62. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hull, David. 1992. “Testing Philosophical Claims about Science.” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers: 468–75. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
  19. Johnson, Steven. 2006. The Ghost Map: The Story of London’s Most Terrifying Epidemic, and How It Changed Science, Cities, and the Modern World. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
  20. Kragh, Helge. 1987. An Introduction to the Historiography of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1977. “The Relations Between the History and the Philosophy of Science.” In The Essential Tension, 3–20. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1984. “Professionalization Recollected in Tranquility.” Isis 75: 29–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lakatos, Imre. 1971. “History of Science and its Rational Reconstructions.” In PSA 1970, edited by Roger C. Buck and Robert S. Cohen, 91–136. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  24. Laudan, Larry. 1990. “The History of Science and the Philosophy of Science.” In Companion to the History of Modern Science, edited by R.C. Olby, G.N. Cantor, J.R.R. Christie and M.J.S. Hodge, 47–59. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Laudan, Rachel. 1992. “The ‘New’ History of Science: Implications for Philosophy of Science.” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers: 476–81. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
  26. Machamer, Peter. 1994. “Selection, System and Historiography.” In Trends in the Historiography of Science, edited by Kostas Gavroglou, Jean Christianidis and Efthymios Nicolaidis, 149–60. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  27. Mayer, Anna-K. 1999. “‘I have been very fortunate...’. Brief Report on the BSHS Oral History Project: ‘The history of science in Britain, 1945–65’.” British Journal for the History of Science 32: 223–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McMullin, Ernan. 1970. “The History and Philosophy of Science: A Taxonomy.” In Historical and Philosophical Perspectives of Science, edited by Roger H. Stuewer, 12–67. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  29. Nickles, Thomas. 1995. “Philosophy of Science and History of Science.” Osiris 10 (2nd series): 138–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pinnick, Cassandra, and George Gale. 2000. “Philosophy of Science and History of Science: A Troubling Interaction.” Journal for the General Philosophy of Science 31: 109–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Porter, Roy. 1990. “The History of Science and the History of Society.” In Companion to the History of Modern Science, edited by R.C. Olby, G.N. Cantor, J.R.R. Christie and M.J.S. Hodge, 32–46. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Richards, Robert J. 1992. “Arguments in a Sartorial Mode, or the Assymmetries of History and Philosophy of Science.” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers: 482–89. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
  33. Ruse, Michael. 1992. “Do the History of Science and the Philosophy of Science Have Anything to Say to Each Other?” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers: 467. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
  34. Shapin, Steven. 1992. “Discipline and Bounding: The History and Sociology of Science as Seen Through the Externalism-Internalism Debate.” History of Science 30: 333–69.Google Scholar
  35. Shea, William R. 1983. “Do Historians and Philosophers of Science Share the Same Heritage.” In Nature Mathematized, edited by William R. Shea, 3–20. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  36. Smeaton, William A. 1997. “History of Science at University College London: 1919–47.” British Journal for the History of Science 30: 25–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Steinle, Friedrich, and Richard M. Burian. 2002. “Introduction: History of Science and Philosophy of Science.” Perspectives on Science 10: 391–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Strasser, Bruno J. 2005. “L’Histoire des Sciences, une Histoire à Part Entière?” Revue Suisse d’Histoire 55: 3–16.Google Scholar
  39. Thackray, Arnold. 1970a. “Comment on ‘Hermeticism and Historiography: An Apology for the Internal History of Science’ by Mary Hesse.” In Historical and Philosophical Perspectives of Science, edited by Roger H. Stuewer, 160–62. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  40. Thackray, Arnold. 1970b. “Science: Has Its Present Past a Future?” In Historical and Philosophical Perspectives of Science, edited by Roger H. Stuewer, 112–33. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  41. Turner, John R. G. 1990. “The History of Science and the Working Scientist.” In Companion to the History of Modern Science, edited by R.C. Olby, G.N. Cantor, J.R.R. Christie and M.J.S. Hodge, 23–31. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Young, Robert M. 1990. “Marxism and the History of Science.” In Companion to the History of Modern Science, edited by R.C. Olby, G.N. Cantor, J.R.R. Christie and M.J.S. Hodge, 23–31. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Duke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations