Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:14:27.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Catholic Response to Secularization and the Rise of the History of Science as a Discipline

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Gabriel Motzkin
Affiliation:
Department of HistoryThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Abstract

This paper argues that the development of the history of science as a discipline should be seen in the context of the bitter nineteenth-century conflict between religion and secular culture in Catholic countries. In this context, neo-Thomist theologians were interested in formulating a Catholic strategy of accommodation to modern science and to modern social systems that would also permit rejection of both modern social theory and the positivist theory of science. While theologians such as Cornoldi and Mercier worked with the positivist image of science common in their day, Duhem opted to reformulate the conception of scientific theory. His religiously motivated assignment of a central place to the history of science – as the only way of hinting at the prospective rapprochement between the conventionalist sphere of scientific theory and the metaphysics of the real world – played a formative role in its development. Duhem's conception of the function of the history of science directed the attention of scholars in the field to medieval science as a point of origin for modern science.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andresen, Carl, and Denzler, Georg, 1982. Wörterbuch der Kirchengeschichte. Munich.Google Scholar
Aubert, Roger, 1975. Geschichte der Kirche. Vom Kirchenstaat zur Weltkirche, vol. V/I. Zurich.Google Scholar
De Raeymaker, L., 1952. Le Cardinal Mercier et l'institutsupérieur dephilosophie de Louvain. Louvain.Google Scholar
Duhem, Pierre, 1987. “An Account of the Scientific Titles and Works of Pierre DuhemScience in Context 1(2): 333348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, , Wallace, K. 1948. The Renaissance in Historical Thought. Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Gadamer, , Hans-Georg, , [1960] 1975. Wahrheit und Methode, 4th ed. Tubingen.Google Scholar
Hahn, Hans, [1934] 1988. “Gibt es Unendliches?” Reprinted in Hans Hahn, Empirismus, Logik, Mathematik, 115–40. Frankfort.Google Scholar
Jaki, Stanley L., 1984. Uneasy Genius: The Life and Work of Pierre Duhem. The Hague.Google Scholar
Kragh, Helge, 1987. An Introduction to the Historiography of Science. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malusa, Luciano, 1986. Neotomismo e Intransigentismo Cattolico. Ii contributo de Giovanni Maria Cornoldi per la rinascita del Tomismo. Milan.Google Scholar
Paul, Harry W., 1979. The Edge of Contingency: French Catholic Reaction to Scientific Change from Darwin to Duhem. Gainesville.Google Scholar
Paul, Harry W., 1985. From Knowledge to Power: The Rise of the Science Empire in France, 1860–1939. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redondi, Pietro, 1978. Epistemologia e storia della scienza. Le svolte teoriche da Duhem a Bachelard. Milan.Google Scholar
Schuhmann, Karl, 1977. Husserl-Chronik. Denk- und Lebensweg Edmund Husseris. The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, A., 1960. Le Cardinal Mercier. Brussels.Google Scholar
Simon, A., 1961a. Instructions aux Nonces de Bruxelles (1835–1889), Analecta VaticanoBelgica. Brussels and Rome.Google Scholar
Simon, A., 1961b. Réunions des Evêques de Belgique, 1868–1883. Procès-Verbaux. Louvain and Paris.Google Scholar
Sommer, Manfred, 1987. Evidenz im Augenblick. Eine Phänomenologie der reiner Empflndung. Frankfort.Google Scholar