Modernism, postmodernism and the historiography of science

2007 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 383-408 ◽  
Author(s):  
John G. Mcevoy

Since its inception in the 18th century, the discipline of the history of science has served a motley collection of extrinsic disciplinary interests, philosophical ideas, and cultural movements. This paper examines the historiographical implications of modernism and postmodernism and shows how they in.uenced positivist, postpositivist, and sociological interpretations of the Chemical Revolution. It also shows how these interpretations served the disciplinary interests of science, phi-losophy, and sociology, respectively, and it points toward a model of the history of science as history.

2018 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-242
Author(s):  
JAMES POSKETT

AbstractWhat is the history of science? How has it changed over the course of the twentieth century? And what does the future hold for the discipline? This ‘Retrospect’ provides an introduction to the historiography of science as it developed in the Anglophone world. It begins with the foundation of the Cambridge History of Science Committee in the 1940s and ends with the growth of cultural history in the 2000s. At the broadest level, it emphasizes the need to consider the close relationship between history and the history of science. All too often the historiography of science is treated separately from history at large. But as this essay shows, these seemingly distinct fields often developed in relation to one another. This essay also reveals the ways in which Cold War politics shaped the history of science as a discipline. It then concludes by considering the future, suggesting that the history of science and the history of political thought would benefit from greater engagement with one another.


2006 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 523-536 ◽  
Author(s):  
LORRAINE DASTON

Since the Enlightenment, the history of science has been enlisted to show the unity and distinctiveness of Europe. This paper, written on the occasion of the award of the 2005 Erasmus Prize to historians of science Simon Schaffer and Steven Shapin, traces the intertwined narratives of the history of science and European modernity from the 18th century to the present. Whether understood as triumph or tragedy (and there have been eloquent proponents of both views), the Scientific Revolution has been portrayed as Europe's decisive break with tradition – the first such break in world history and the model for all subsequent epics of modernization in other cultures. The paper concludes with reflections on how a new history of science, exemplified in the work of Shapin and Schaffer, may transform the self-image of Europe and conceptions of truth itself.


Itinerario ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonella Romano ◽  
Stéphane Van Damme

Through its focus on the question of circulation, world history attained a central position amongst the historical configurations in the last decade. Indicative of our fundamentally changing world, the past thereby reveals itself to have been shaped by commercial, human and intellectual flows of global dimension. The history of science has been particularly receptive to such methodological developments, especially with regard to works influenced by a markedly social approach to science and knowledge, which has focused for some time on the analysis of intellectual networks. From the French provincial Enlightenment to Athansius Kircher's circles—including the relationships of patronage of mathematicians and court philosophers—social, intellectual and epistemological configurations have been designed, allowing us to consider different scales in the circulation of knowledge.


1993 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 469-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ludmilla Jordanova

The production of big pictures is arguably the most significant sign of the intellectual maturity of a field. It suggests both that the field's broad contours, refined over several generations of scholarship, enjoy the approval of practitioners, and that audiences exist with an interest in or need for overviews. The situation is somewhat more complicated in the history of science, since the existence of big historical pictures precedes that of a well-defined scholarly field by about two centuries. Broadly conceived histories of science and medicine were being written in the eighteenth century, when such an all-encompassing vision was central to the claims about the progress of knowledge upon which Enlightenment ideologues set such store. The Plato to Nato style histories, characteristic of the earlier twentieth century, were written largely by isolated pioneers, and while these were used in teaching as the field was becoming professionalized, recent scholars have preferred to concentrate on a monographic style of research. Despite the existence of the series started by Wiley, and now published by Cambridge University Press, it is only in the last ten years or so that more conscious attempts have been made to generate a big-picture literature informed by new scholarship. It is noteworthy that most of this is addressed to students and general readers, although there is no logical reason why it should not tackle major theoretical issues of concern to scholars. My point about maturity still holds, then, since as a designated discipline the history of science is rather new; it is still feeling out its relationship with cognate disciplines. Big-picture histories have an important role to play in these explorations since they make findings and ideas widely available and thereby offer material through which ambitious interpretations can be debated, modified and transformed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (67) ◽  
pp. 549-563
Author(s):  
VICTOR RAFAEL LIMEIRA DA SILVA

Abstract This essay analyses a particular historiographical bibliography with the aim of addressing the divergence between history and history of science. I argue that the absence of the history of the human sciences in the historiography of science expands the distance between the history of science and other disciplines of historical studies. To ponder this hypothesis, I will analyse the historiography of Alfred Russel Wallace’s scientific voyage in the Amazon (1848-1852), arguing that the omission of the ethnographic dimension of this expedition exposes important aspects to understand the nature of such dissension and its effects on the construction of the history of the human sciences.


Author(s):  
Andrea Reichenberger ◽  
Moema Vergara

Special Issue – Women in Sciences: Historiography of Science and History of Science – on the Work of Women in Sciences and Philosophy


2020 ◽  
pp. 719-735
Author(s):  
Simon S. Ilizarov ◽  

This paper reviews the work of the Archive of the Soviet Academy of Sciences during the blockade of Leningrad in 1941–42. It is based on the archive series that contains a report detailing the work of the 22 Academy’s institutions in Leningrad (11 scientific research institutes, 3 museums, the Archive, the Library, the Geographical Society, etc.) over 7 months of 1942 and prepared for the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences. It lists Archive’s staff members who died or were evacuated during this period. It shows that, even in the hardest days under the blockade, the work in the Archive never stopped. An important part of this work was associated with the activities of the Commission for the History of the USSR Academy of Sciences (KIAN). The paper reviews the history of the KIAN creation under the auspices of the Archive of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in Leningrad in 1938, soon after forcible liquidation of the Institute for the History of Science and Technology and tragic death of its first director, Academician N.I. Bukharin. A number of outstanding historians-archivists and historians of science – A.I. Andreyev, I.I. Lyubimenko, L.B. Modzalevskii, and others – participated in the work of the KIAN headed by Academician S. I. Vavilov and his deputy, Director of the Archive, G.A. Knyazev. The research and archaeographic work of the Archive’s staff was associated with preparation of publications for the “Scientific Heritage” series (it was established in 1940 upon initiative of the President of the Soviet Academy of Sciences V. L. Komarov with active participation of the eminent historian of science T. I. Rainov). During that period, the editorial work on the second volume of the “Reviews of Archive Materials” (Obozreniya arkhivnykh materialov) was completed and V.F. Gnucheva completed her unique history-of-science book “The Geographical Department of the 18th century Academy of Sciences.” Both books were published after the war, in 1946. The main result of the work of the few Archive’s staff members was safeguarding the precious historical materials and searching for, concentrating, and preserving documentation of evacuated institutions and individual scientists, some of whom were killed by the cold, famine, and diseases. The paper contains data from official reports: quantitative data concerning documents taken into the Archive’s custody in 1941 and in 1942 and processed and described series; it names institutions and scholars, whose documents ended up in the Archive of the Academy of Sciences. By July 31, 1942, the number of fonds in the Archive reached 740. Reports of such Academy institutions as the Institute of Oriental Studies, the N.Ya. Marr Institute for the History of Material Culture, the Institute of Literature, the All-Union Geographical Society, and others allow the scholars to analyze their work associated with the preservation of books and archival fonds and collections. The paper is based on documentary sources that are being introduced into scientific use for the first time.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document