Why and How Do I Write the History of Science

Bibliographic Data

ID4516461
AuthorsRoger Smith (0000-0003-4720-0280, Russian Academy of Sciences, corresponding author)
Year2013
Volume26
Issue4
Pages611-625
Publication date2013-12-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueScience in Context (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0269-8897 • E-ISSN: 1474-0664
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0269889713000306
OpenAlexW2123239483
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited21

I make a large claim for the intellectual and institutional centrality of the history of science as critical reason. The reality on the ground, of course, does not always exhibit this. I trace the vicissitudes of my own way of thought in relation to developments in the field, leading to an interest, first, in relating intellectual history (with its philosophical orientation) to mainstream (evidence based) history, and second, to finding a place for the human sciences in the history of science. The latter area, which involves questioning the nature of science as knowledge, leads to an engagement with notions of being human. It is an interest which potentially makes the history of science a boundless field, and it is necessary to comment on the questions, both intellectual and practical, that this raises. I welcome a notion of the history of science as a family of activities, and I relate this to practices which seek models of good history rather than explicit methods

Centrality · Epistemology · History of ideas · History of science · Human science · Intellectual history · Mainstream · Political science · Science studies · Social science · Sociology · Computer Science · History of Science and Medicine · History of Science and Natural History · Law · Philosophy · Philosophy and History of Science

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub