In Defense of Presentism
Datos Bibliográficos
| ID | 4875889 |
|---|---|
| Autores | David L Hull (autor de correspondencia) |
| Año | 1979 |
| Volumen | 18 |
| Número | 1 |
| Páginas | 1 |
| Fecha de publicación | 1979-02-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sí |
| Open Access | No |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Revista | History and Theory (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores de la revista | ISSN: 0018-2656 • E-ISSN: 1468-2303 |
| Editorial | JSTOR (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/2504668 |
| OpenAlex | W2321848518 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citas recibidas | 24 |
L. Pearce Williams was so irate over Joseph Agassi's book on Michael Faraday and the section on Faraday in a book by William Berkson that he was moved to entitle his review Should Philosophers Be Allowed to Write History?' Williams answers the question posed in the title of his review with a resounding NO! He complains that philosophers are prone to scandalous carelessness in transcribing quotations and to inaccurate descriptions, not to mention some highly questionable interpretations. They are more interested in plausible connections between ideas than in actual connections, in what they would have thought in the circumstances rather than in what the people concerned actually thought. But worst of anl, philosophers tend to use history of science to illustrate their own views on the nature of science, rather than treating it inductively. Popperians such as Agassi and Berkson view histories of science as good places to introduce conjectures to be refuted by later workers. Imre Lakatos has even gone so far as to state that history of science should be written as it should have taken place, given a particular philosophy of science, rather than as it actually did take place: One way to indicate discrepancies between history and its rational reconstruction to relate the internal history in the text, and indicate in the footnotes how actual history 'misbehaved' in the light of its rational reconstruction. 2 Once Lakatos' position translated out of the controversial idiom which he invariably prefers, it does not sound so radical and ahistorical. Even so, Williams would surely object. History, according to Williams, is an inductive science.' ' I happen to agree with most of Williams' historiographical preferences. I too value accurate quotations, citations, and de
Epistemology · Presentism · Philosophy · Philosophy and History of Science
The new history of psychology
The ambiguous “new history of psychology”
Be Careful What You Wish For
The Belated Renaissance of University History in the United States
What Links the Chain
The “new history of psychology” and the uses and abuses of dichotomies
Engaging White College Students in Productive Conversations About Race and Racism
The grounding problem and presentist explanations
In sharing and explaining the history of socio-ecological practice, we must act as intergenerational mediators between the past and present historymakers
Claiming presentism
A critical paradigm for the histories of anthropology
The new history of psychology
Will and artifice
Rethinking presentism in history education
Beyond the Whig history interpretation of history
Hermeneutical contributions to the history of science
Forms of presentism in the history of science. Rethinking the project of historical epistemology
Selection, presentism, and pluralist history
A realistic look backward
Whig History and Present-centred History
Recuperating the Archive
The historiography of archaeology
Paradigms Lost-Paradigms Found
A Historian among the Anthropologists
| Obras citantes distintas | 24 |
|---|---|
| Citas por año | 0,53 |
| Intervalo de citas | 1981 - 2026 (46) |
| Velocidad de citación | current |
| Altamente citado | No |
| Tipos de cita | Neutras: 20 |