Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T23:29:19.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How and Why I Write History of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2013

Menachem Fisch
Menachem Fisch*
Affiliation:
Cohn Institute, Tel Aviv University E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I have always been a philosopher at heart. I write history of science and history of its philosophy primarily as a philosopher wary of his abstractions and broad conceptualizations. But that has not always been the case. Lakatos famously portrayed history of science as the testing ground for theories of scientific rationality. But he did so along the crudest Hegelian lines that did injury both to Hegel and to the history and methodology of science. Since science is ultimately rational, he argued, rival methodologies can prove their mettle by competing for whose tendentiously reconstructed account of the history of science renders more of it rational! (Lakatos 1971). My own approach to the relationship between history and philosophy of science started out perhaps a little more open-mindedly than Lakatos's, but in a manner no less crude. Over the years the relationship between the history I wrote and the philosophy to which I was committed took on a firmer and more reciprocal shape. It did so in the course of a process that I now realize exemplified the philosophical position it eventually yielded. I would like to trace that development in the following pages and reflect as best I can on where it has led and left me.

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 26 , Issue 4: Approaches, Styles, and Narratives: Reflections on Doing History of Science , December 2013 , pp. 573 - 585
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Aggasi, Joseph. 1964. “On the Nature of Scientific Problems and Their Roots in Metaphysics.” In Bunge 1964, 189–211.Google Scholar
Brandom, Robert. 2002. Tales of the Mighty Dead: Historical Essays in the Metaphysics of Intentionality. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bunge, Mario, ed. 1964. The Critical Approach: Essays in Honor of K. R. Popper. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Collingwood, Robin G. 1939. An Autobiography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Curtis, Ronald C. 1986. “Are Methodologies Theories of Scientific Rationality.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35:135–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiSalle, Robert. 2002. “Reconsidering Kant, Friedman, Logical Positivism, and the Exact Science.” Philosophy of Science 69 (2):191–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiSalle, Robert. 2006. Understanding Space-time: The Philosophical Development of Physics from Newton to Einstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiSalle, Robert. 2010. “Synthesis, and the Synthetic A Priori, and the Origins of Modern Space-Time Theory.” In Domski and Dickson 2010, 523–551.Google Scholar
Domski, Mary, and Dickson, Michael, eds. 2010. Discourse on a New Method: Reinvigorating the Marriage of History and Philosophy of Science. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Fisch, Menachem. 1985a. “Necessary and Contingent Truth in William Whewell's Antithetical Theory of Knowledge.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16:275–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisch, Menachem. 1985b. “Whewell's Consilience of Inductions – An Evaluation.” Philosophy of Science 52:239–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisch, Menachem. 1987. “Il collegamento dei fatti: la nozione non necessaria di verità empirica di William Whewell.” In Simili 1987, 39–63.Google Scholar
Fisch, Menachem. 1988. “A Physicists’ Philosopher: James Clerk Maxwell on Mathematical Physics.” Journal of Statistical Physics 51:309–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisch, Menachem. 1991a. William Whewell Philosopher of Science. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisch, Menachem. 1991b. “A Philosopher's Coming of Age – A Study in Erotetic Intellectual History.” In Fisch & Schaffer 1991, 31–66.Google Scholar
Fisch, Menachem. 1991c. “Antithetical Knowledge.” In Fisch & Schaffer 1991, 289–309.Google Scholar
Fisch, Menachem. 1992. “Ein Blick vorwärts in die Vergangenheit: Ein Fall für den historischen Nominalismus.” Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 40:1279–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisch, Menachem. 1994a. “Towards a Rational Theory of Progress.” Synthese 99:277–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisch, Menachem. 1994b. “Trouble-Shooting Creativity.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 16:141–153.Google Scholar
Fisch, Menachem. 1994c. “The Emergency Which Has Arrived: The Problematic History of 19th Century British Algebra – A Programmatic Outline.” British Journal for the History of Science 27:247–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisch, Menachem. 1999. “The Making of Peacock's Treatise on Algebra: A Case of Creative Indecision.” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 54:137–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisch, Menachem. 2008. “Taking the Linguistic Turn Seriously.” The European Legacy 13 (5):605–622 (Special issue on The Languages of Science and the Humanities).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisch, Menachem. 2010. “Toward a History and Philosophy of Scientific Agency.” The Monist 93 (4):518–544 (Special issue on Philosophical History of Science).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisch, Menachem. In preparation. Creatively Undecided: Toward a History and Philosophy of Scientific Agency.Google Scholar
Fisch, Menachem, and Benbaji, Yitzhak. 2011. The View from Within: Normativity and the Limits of Self Criticsm. South Bend IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Fisch, Menachem, and Schaffer, Simon, eds. 1991. William Whewell: A Composite Portrait. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2001. Dynamics of Reason: The 1999 Kant Lectures at Stanford University. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2002. “Kant, Kuhn, and the Rationality of Science.” Philosophy of Science 69 (2):171–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2010a. “Concluding Essay.” In Domski & Dickson 2010, 571–813.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2010b. “A Post-Kuhnian Approach to the History and Philosophy of Science.” The Monist 93 (4):497–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garber, Daniel. 1986. “Learning from the Past: Reflections on the Role of History in the Philosophy of Science.” Synthese 67:91–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graves, Robert P. 1882, 1885, 1889. Life of Sir William Rowan Hamilton, 3 vols. Dublin and London: Hodges, Figgis and Company and Longmans.Google Scholar
Gregory, Duncan F. 1840. “On the Real Nature of Symbolical Algebra.” Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 14:208–216. Reprinted in Gregory 1865: 1–13, pagination according to reprint.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, Duncan F. 1865. The Mathematical Writings of Duncan Farquharson Gregory Late Fellow of Trinity College Cambridge, edited by Walton, William with Biographical Memoir by Leslie Ellis, Robert. Cambridge: Deighton.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian. [1979] 1981. “Imre Lakatos's Philosophy of Science.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 30 (4):381–402 (extracts of which were republished with revisions as “Lakatos's Philosophy of Science,” in Hacking 1981, 128–143).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian, ed. 1981. Scientific Revolutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hankins, Thomas L. 1980. Sir William Rowan Hamilton. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Lakatos and Musgrave 1970, 91–196; reprinted in Lakatos 1978, 8–101.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1971. “History of Science and its Rational Reconstructions.” Proceedings of the 1970 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol. 1970, 91–136. Reprinted in 1971, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 8: 91–136; and in Lakatos 1978, 102–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1978. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers, vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre, and Musgrave, Alan, eds. 1970. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrell, Jack. 1992. “The Judge and Purifier of All.” History of Science 30:97–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1976. “The Myth of the Framework.” In The Abdication of Philosophy: Philosophy and the Public Good, edited by Freeman, Eugene, 23–48. La Salle IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1994. The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shapin, Steven. 2008. The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simili, Raffaella, ed. 1987. L'epistemologia di Cambridge (1850–1950). Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Whewell, William. 1834. “On the Nature of the Truth of the Laws of Motion.” Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 5:149–72.Google Scholar
Whewell, William. 1847. The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences Founded upon their History, 2 vols., 2nd edition. London: John W. Parker.Google Scholar