Comments on: The End of the History of Science? http://ragesoss.com/blog/2007/11/07/the-end-of-the-history-of-science/ assorted blogging by Sage Ross Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:26:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Sage http://ragesoss.com/blog/2007/11/07/the-end-of-the-history-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-60 Sage Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:24:00 +0000 http://ragesoss.com/blog/?p=99#comment-60 "In my (admittedly limited, but not entirely narrow) experience, the history of science is stronger when it's in closer dialogue with regular historical analysis."<br/><br/>I agree with that, but I also think there could be a point at which integration went so far that some kinds of work that I think are valuable (particularly, the kinds pursued in HPS departments, or the kind of work Larry Holmes did) become harder and harder to do. “In my (admittedly limited, but not entirely narrow) experience, the history of science is stronger when it’s in closer dialogue with regular historical analysis.”

I agree with that, but I also think there could be a point at which integration went so far that some kinds of work that I think are valuable (particularly, the kinds pursued in HPS departments, or the kind of work Larry Holmes did) become harder and harder to do.

]]> By: Susan http://ragesoss.com/blog/2007/11/07/the-end-of-the-history-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-59 Susan Tue, 13 Nov 2007 06:14:00 +0000 http://ragesoss.com/blog/?p=99#comment-59 Does that distinguish history of science from other types of history, though? Historians who understand military tactics and strategy bring a different level of analysis to military history, and historians who understand physics bring a different level of analysis to the history of physics, but that doesn't mean that either military history or the history of science are really better served by being divorced from the mainstream of history.<br/><br/>I think that's what I was actually getting at with my question. I do have at least some familiarity with the history of the field, but I see increased integration with history as a -benefit- to the history of science, not a problem. What does the work really benefit by being separated from history? In my (admittedly limited, but not entirely narrow) experience, the history of science is stronger when it's in closer dialogue with regular historical analysis. Does that distinguish history of science from other types of history, though? Historians who understand military tactics and strategy bring a different level of analysis to military history, and historians who understand physics bring a different level of analysis to the history of physics, but that doesn’t mean that either military history or the history of science are really better served by being divorced from the mainstream of history.

I think that’s what I was actually getting at with my question. I do have at least some familiarity with the history of the field, but I see increased integration with history as a -benefit- to the history of science, not a problem. What does the work really benefit by being separated from history? In my (admittedly limited, but not entirely narrow) experience, the history of science is stronger when it’s in closer dialogue with regular historical analysis.

]]> By: Sage http://ragesoss.com/blog/2007/11/07/the-end-of-the-history-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-58 Sage Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:41:00 +0000 http://ragesoss.com/blog/?p=99#comment-58 Susan, historically at least, history of science originated as something quite distinct from history...largely divorced from social and political context and focused on the intellectual development of science. It was conceived of in some sense as a handmaiden to science, something more useful for scientists (and science students) than for historians.<br/><br/>I think it's fair to say that most historians of science would now agree that integration with, or at least drawing on, mainstream history is indispensable for doing good history of science. This has been the trend since the "social turn" that started gaining momentum around the time of Structure. But there is also an "internalist" strain that remains in a lot of history of science (that is, internal to the scientific communities being studied), an engagement with the technical aspects of scientific thought and practice, that isn't part of straight history. There is a lot of history of science that can be done in the pure history mode, but history of science still has enough that is distinctive in terms of methods and intellectual approaches that other historians can't engage with some of it.<br/><br/>If you ever have a chance to attend a history of modern physics session at an HSS meeting, this will be abundantly clear; much of that is not anything most historians would recognize as history in the sense they know it. (Although, of course, not all technically-demanding history of science is necessary inaccessible to scientific laypeople.) <br/><br/>There are some lines of research in the history of science that you simply can't pursue without advanced scientific training, but the history of science has been moving increasingly away from such work. The issue at hand in Andre Wakefield's "The End of the History of Science" talk was whether that's a good or a bad thing. Susan, historically at least, history of science originated as something quite distinct from history…largely divorced from social and political context and focused on the intellectual development of science. It was conceived of in some sense as a handmaiden to science, something more useful for scientists (and science students) than for historians.

I think it’s fair to say that most historians of science would now agree that integration with, or at least drawing on, mainstream history is indispensable for doing good history of science. This has been the trend since the “social turn” that started gaining momentum around the time of Structure. But there is also an “internalist” strain that remains in a lot of history of science (that is, internal to the scientific communities being studied), an engagement with the technical aspects of scientific thought and practice, that isn’t part of straight history. There is a lot of history of science that can be done in the pure history mode, but history of science still has enough that is distinctive in terms of methods and intellectual approaches that other historians can’t engage with some of it.

If you ever have a chance to attend a history of modern physics session at an HSS meeting, this will be abundantly clear; much of that is not anything most historians would recognize as history in the sense they know it. (Although, of course, not all technically-demanding history of science is necessary inaccessible to scientific laypeople.)

There are some lines of research in the history of science that you simply can’t pursue without advanced scientific training, but the history of science has been moving increasingly away from such work. The issue at hand in Andre Wakefield’s “The End of the History of Science” talk was whether that’s a good or a bad thing.

]]> By: Susan http://ragesoss.com/blog/2007/11/07/the-end-of-the-history-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-57 Susan Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:05:00 +0000 http://ragesoss.com/blog/?p=99#comment-57 I think I don't entirely understand the "end of the history of science" argument--maybe because I trained up in a history department, where history of science is just another historical track? I've never been entirely comfortable with the idea that the history of science can be studied independently of more "mainstream" history anyway--the history of science classes I teach are as much history classes as they are science classes. Or am I missing something? I think I don’t entirely understand the “end of the history of science” argument–maybe because I trained up in a history department, where history of science is just another historical track? I’ve never been entirely comfortable with the idea that the history of science can be studied independently of more “mainstream” history anyway–the history of science classes I teach are as much history classes as they are science classes. Or am I missing something?

]]> By: jhorgan http://ragesoss.com/blog/2007/11/07/the-end-of-the-history-of-science/comment-page-1/#comment-56 jhorgan Sat, 10 Nov 2007 12:42:00 +0000 http://ragesoss.com/blog/?p=99#comment-56 Sage, I'm not sure this will be posted, but I'll give it a shot. Sorry you thought my talk at HSS was too close to my Discover article. When I give talks like this, I'm always torn between saying something new or repeating what I'm best-known for. I usually go with the latter because most people aren't really familiar with my end-of-science schtick, and I want to give it to them as bluntly as possible, to stir up trouble. Anyway, glad to have met you there, and thanks for sprucing up my Wikipedia entry. John Horgan Sage, I’m not sure this will be posted, but I’ll give it a shot. Sorry you thought my talk at HSS was too close to my Discover article. When I give talks like this, I’m always torn between saying something new or repeating what I’m best-known for. I usually go with the latter because most people aren’t really familiar with my end-of-science schtick, and I want to give it to them as bluntly as possible, to stir up trouble. Anyway, glad to have met you there, and thanks for sprucing up my Wikipedia entry. John Horgan

]]>