Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Philosophy of Science and History3 of Science: A Non Troubling Interaction

  • Published:
Journal for General Philosophy of Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cassandra Pinnick and George Gale (Journal for General Phisophy of Science 31, 109–125) examined the post-Lakatos period of historical cum philosophical case studies and concluded that a new methodology is required. Lakatos' proposed ‘history2’ (the theory- and value-laden reconstruction of history1, the set of historical events) was criticised. Recently a group of scholars have been pursuing a methodology which could be described as history 3, a history1 account of the interaction between the significant scientific papers published during the time period in question and their scientific audience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Akeroyd, F. M.: 1988, 'Research Programmes and empirical results', British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39, 51–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akeroyd, F. M.: 2000, 'The Rise of the Hughes-Ingold Theory 1933–1942', Foundations of Chemistry 2, 99–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brush, S. G.: 1996, 'The reception of Mendeleef's Periodic Law in America and Britain', Isis 87, 595–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brush, S. G.: 1999, 'Dynamics of theory change in chemistry', Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 30, 21–79; 262–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, A.: 1994, Antoine Lavoisier, Science, Administration and Revolution, Blackwell, Cambridge MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earman, J. and Glymour, C.: 1978, 'Einstein and Hilbert: two months in the Theory of Relativity', Archives for the History of the Exact Sciences 19, 291–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I.: 1970, 'History of Science and its Rational Reconstructions', PSA 1970 Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 8, Amsterdam, R. Reidel, 91–109, see footnote 50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Grand, H. E.: 1977, 'Genius and the dogmatisation of error: the failure of C. L.Berthollet's attack on the Lavoisier Acid Theory', Organon 12/13, 193–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinnick, C. and Gale, G.: 2000, 'Philosophy of Science and History of Science: A troubling interaction', Journal for General Philosophy of Science 31, 109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R.: 1972, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, Oxford, Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. D.: 1984, 'The ChemioOsmotic Hypothesis of energy coupling and the path of scientific opportunity', Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 27, 362–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scerri, E.: 1994, 'Predictions of the nature of Hafnium from Chemistry', Annals of Science 51, 137–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schofield, K.: 1994, 'The development of Ingold's system of Organic Chemistry', Ambix 41, 87–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinert, F.: 'The Duhem-Quine thesis revisited', International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 9, 147–156.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bradford College, BD 7 1AY, U.K

    F. Michael Akeroyd

Authors
  1. F. Michael Akeroyd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Akeroyd, F.M. Philosophy of Science and History3 of Science: A Non Troubling Interaction. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 33, 159–162 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020759420211

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020759420211

Search

Navigation