Abstract
A description of the often neglected portrayal of the problems facing the history of science today is followed by a brief review of varying methodological approaches found in the history of the history of science, above all from William Whewell to the present. A critical appraisal of Joseph Agassi’s thesis that there have been only three methodological variations in the history of science is given, showing how it conflicts with what historians of science have done. This is no bleak result: Science progresses quite well through its steady and productive interaction with methodological theories. The social rules of science are reformed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Agassi, Joseph. 1971. Faraday as a natural philosopher. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
———. 2008. Science and its history. New York: Springer.
Burtt, Edwin A. 1954. The metaphysical foundations of modern physical science, 1924. Garden City: Doubleday & Co. (first published.
Cohen, I. Bernard. 1953. Benjamin Franklin. Indianapolis/New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
Cohen, H. Floris. 1994. The scientific revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Cohen, Robert S., and Raymond J. Seeger, eds. 1970. Ernst Mach: Physicist and philosopher. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Duhem, Pierre 1962. The aim and structure of physical theory. New York: Atheneum; first published in 1914 under the title: La Théorie Physique: Son Objet, Sa Structure.
Koestler, Arthur. 1963. The sleepwalkers. New York: Grosset & Dunlap; first published, 1959.
Koyré, Alexandre. 1955. A documentary history of the problem of fall from Kepler to Newton. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 45 (4): 329–395.
———. 1958. From the closed world to the infinite universe. New York: Harper & Brothers; first published, 1957.
———. 1965. Newtonian studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
———. 1971. Descartes und die Scholastik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
———. 1973. The astronomical revolution. Paris/Hermann/London/Methuen/Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Mach, Ernst. 1970. Einstein and the search for reality. In Cohen and Seeger (eds.) 1970, pp. 165–199.
———. 1974. The science of mechanics. La Salle IL: Open Court; first published in 1893 as Die Mechanik in Ihrer Entwicklung Historisch-Kritisch Dargestellt.
Wettersten, John 2005, Whewell’s critics: Have they prevented him from doing good?, with a forward by James Bell, commentaries by Joseph Agassi, Joseph Margolis, Michael Segre, Ronald Curtis, Maurice Finocchiaro and Godfrey Guillaumin, and replies by the author. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
Wettersten, John, and Joseph Agassi. 1991. Whewell’s problematic heritage. In William Whewell: A composite portrait, ed. Menachem Fisch and Simon Schaffer. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Whewell, William. 1967a. History of the inductive sciences. London/Edinburgh: Frank Cass.
———. 1967b. Philosophy of the inductive sciences. London/Edinburgh: Frank Cass.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wettersten, J.R. (2017). The Legends of One Methodology of Science Used Throughout Its History and Its Independence from the Institutions in which Science Has Been Conducted. In: Bar-Am, N., Gattei, S. (eds) Encouraging Openness. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol 325. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57669-5_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57669-5_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-57668-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-57669-5
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)