Making Economic Knowledge: Reflections on Golinski's Constructivist History of Science

2001 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Roy Weintraub

While most scientists and philosophers of science privilege scientific knowledge, and have sought demarcations of science from non-science to justify the privilege, sociologists of science, small numbers of philosophers of science, anthropologists, and some scientists themselves have been attracted to a new way of talking about science. Prefigured by Ludwik Fleck (1935/1979) and Gaston Bachelard (1934/1984), nurtured by the controversies over Thomas Kuhn's work, and instantiated in the Edinburgh School's Strong Program, the naturalistic turn portrays science as a human activity, part of the woof and warp of culture itself. Yet curiously historians of science have been less involved in this recent reconceptualization of both science and scientific knowledge.

Author(s):  
Enrico Castelli Gattinara

The article shows the strategic analogies, but also the differences between Bachelard and Canguilhem on the use of the history of science for epistemology. It emphasizes the importance of the ideology for Canguilhem, and the conceptual essence he recognizes in the history of science, which is read in its internal specific differences and in its complex articulations with life and reality. No concept, in fact, comes from nothing. The link between history and epistemology is not however of subjection, but of mutual influence. Canguilhem radicalizes the thought of Bachelard, and recognizes the historicity of every aspect of scientific knowledge, even of its less valued features and above all of errors. All aspects of Science are historical. The object of the history of science is not the object of the sciences, because it is always a discourse. This is why the history of science is inevitably linked to other forms of history. This opens up a pluralist conception of History and of Time, thinking of the sciences in their real body and no longer ideal or legal. Thus Canguilhem opens the way to the researches of Foucault and Serres.


2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
DEBORAH R. COEN

Bilingualism was Kuhn's solution to the problem of relativism, the problem raised by his own theory of incommensurability. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, he argued that scientific theories are separated by gulfs of mutual incomprehension. There is no neutral ground from which to judge one theory fitter than another. Each is formulated in its own language and cannot be translated into the idiom of another. Yet, like many Americans, Kuhn never had the experience of moving comfortably between languages. “I've never been any good really at foreign languages,” he admitted in an interview soon before his death. “I can read French, I can read German, if I'm dropped into one of those countries I can stammer along for a while, but my command of foreign languages is not good, and never has been, which makes it somewhat ironic that much of my thought these days goes to language.” Kuhn may have been confessing to more than a personal weakness. His linguistic ineptitude seems to be a clue to his overweening emphasis on the difficulty of “transworld travel.” Multilingualism remained for him an abstraction. In this respect, I will argue, Kuhn engendered a peculiarly American turn in the history of science. Kuhn's argument for the dependence of science on the norms of particular communities has been central to the development of studies of science in and as culture since the 1980s. Recent work on the mutual construction of science and nationalism, for instance, is undeniably in Kuhn's debt. Nonetheless, the Kuhnian revolution cut off other avenues of research. In this essay, I draw on the counterexample of the physician–historian Ludwik Fleck, as well as on critiques by Steve Fuller and Ted Porter, to suggest one way to situate Kuhn within the broader history of the history of science. To echo Kuhn's own visual metaphors, one of the profound effects of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions on the field of history of science was to render certain modes of knowledge production virtually invisible.


Author(s):  
Staffan Müller-Wille

This article explores what both historians of medicine and historians of science could gain from a stronger entanglement of their respective research agendas. It first gives a cursory outline of the history of the relationship between science and medicine since the scientific revolution in the seventeenth century. Medicine can very well be seen as a domain that was highly productive of scientific knowledge, yet in ways that do not fit very well with the historiographic framework that dominated the history of science. Furthermore, the article discusses two alternative historiographical approaches that offer ways of thinking about the growth of knowledge that fit well with the cumulative and translational patterns that characterize the development of the medical sciences, and also provide an understanding of concepts such as ‘health’ and ‘life’.


Author(s):  
Juliana Mesquita Hidalgo ◽  
Daniel De Medeiros Queiroz

ResumoO presente trabalho visa contribuir com a fundamentação teórica para a escrita de biografias científicas com fins didáticos. O gênero biográfico é um legítimo foro de “humanização” do conhecimento científico, um dos papéis centrais da inserção didática da História da Ciência. Recortes biográficos que não representem os cientistas com caráter sobre-humano, escritos não como absoluta verdade, e sim como história interpretada, podem ser úteis no contexto educacional. Sugerimos a escrita de recortes biográficos destinados à educação científica que considere os novos aportes do gênero, isto é, à luz de fundamentos historiográficos atualizados. São apresentados subsídios da área disciplinar História, a exemplo da perspectiva de história-problema, e subsídios da História da Ciência, em objeção às biografias laudatórias.Palavras-chave: Biografia Científica; Gênero Biográfico; Historiografia.AbstractThis paper aims to contribute for the theoretical foundation concerning the writing of scientific biographies for didactic purposes. Biographical genre is a legitimate forum “to humanize” the scientific knowledge, one of the central roles of the didactic insertion of the History of Science. Biographical fragments not representative of scientists as “superhuman” and written as interpreted history, may be useful in the educational context. We suggest the writing of biographical fragments for science education that consider the new contributions of the genre, in other words, in light of historiographical foundations currently accepted. Subsidies from the disciplinary area History are presented, such as the perspective of history as problem, and subsidies from History of Science, in objection to laudatory biographies.Keywords: Scientific Biography; Biographical Genre; Historiography.


2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 94-111
Author(s):  
Alberto Fragio

AbstractAccording to the American philosopher, Michael Friedman, while triggering the so-called “historical turn,” Kuhn reinstated the history of science as perhaps the most important object for the philosophy of science. In this paper, I show that this reinstatement is rather a rehabilitation of the philosophical and epistemological uses of the history of science, something already present in the continental historiography of science in the first half of the twentieth century, and especially in Gaston Bachelard’s work. In this sense, I undertake a review of the European history and philosophy of science during that period, paying special attention to Gaston Bachelard as one of the leading representatives of the French historical epistemology of the 1930s. I conclude with the late and quite problematic reception of Bachelard’s thought in the early work of Thomas S. Kuhn. My thesis is this strand may help to outline what is continental history and philosophy of science.


Antiquity ◽  
1948 ◽  
Vol 22 (85) ◽  
pp. 29-32
Author(s):  
V. Gordon Childe

A Minute study of metal work can make extraordinarily illuminating contributions to the history of science and to economic history, and can substantially enhance our appreciation of early art and culture in general. But it requires not only technical and historical knowledge but also quite costly apparatus and an unusual complaisancy in museum directors. Oldeberg possesses an expert’s familiarity with metallurgical processes and a truly remarkable mastery of the relevant geological and archaeological literature. The State Historical Museum in Stockholm is equipped with a good spectroscope wisely used for the increase of scientific knowledge. To the same end various Swedish museums have permitted the analysis of 640 specimens and a microscopic examination of 34 dating from the ‘Copper Age’ to Viking times. (The number of analyses actually at the author’s disposal and published is brought up to 747 by the inclusion of earlier reports on Danish, Norwegian and Finnish objects). The publication of such results alone, especially when as here illustrated by 800 splendid photographs, would constitute an outstanding event in prehistory.


2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Yoshiko Reed

The full publication of 4Q208 and 4Q209 in 2000 has enabled a renaissance of research on the Enochic Astronomical Book, illumining its deep connections with Babylonian scholasticism and spurring debate about the precise channels by which such “scientific” knowledge came to reach Jewish scribes. This article asks whether attention to Aramaic manuscripts related to the Astronomical Book might also reveal something about Jewish scribal pedagogy and literary production in the early Hellenistic age, particularly prior to the Maccabean Revolt. Engaging recent studies from Classics and the History of Science concerning astronomy, pedagogy, and the place of scribes and books in the cultural politics of the third century bce, it uses the test-case of the Astronomical Book to explore the potential significance of Aramaic sources for charting changes within Jewish literary cultures at the advent of Macedonian rule in the Near East.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-219
Author(s):  
Alexander Thumfart

During the last three decades research in the rhetoric of natural science has established itself as a prominent topic in the history of science, culture, and society. Despite this overall success, the status, function and place of rhetoric in the process of knowledge production is still ambivalent and disputed. While some scholars place rhetoric right in the centre of the construction of scientific knowledge, others support the view that scientific knowledge is epistemologically privileged. Based on research done by the prominent sociologist, philosopher, and historian Bruno Latour, the article argues that rhetoric plays a minimal role in the production of knowledge but is crucial in the dissemination and (successful) implementation of scientific results.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document