Setting up a discipline: Conflicting agendas of the cambridge history of science committee, 1936-1950
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 31 (4):665-689 (2000)
|Abstract||Traditionally the domain of scientists, the history of science became an independent field of inquiry only in the twentieth century and mostly after the Second World War. This process of emancipation was accompanied by a historiographical departure from previous, 'scientistic' practices, a transformation often attributed to influences from sociology, philosophy and history. Similarly, the liberal humanists who controlled the Cambridge History of Science Committee after 1945 emphasized that their contribution lay in the special expertise they, as trained historians, brought to the venture. However, the scientists who had founded the Committee in the 1930s had already advocated a sophisticated contextual approach: innovation in the history of science thus clearly came also from within the ranks of scientists who practised in the field. Moreover, unlike their scientist predecessors on the Cambridge Committee, the liberal humanists supported a positivistic protocol that has since been criticized for its failure to properly contextualize early modern science. Lastly, while celebrating the rise of modern science as an international achievement, the liberal humanists also emphasized the peculiar Englishness of the phenomenon. In this respect, too, their outlook had much in common with the practices from which they attempted to distance their project.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
A. H. Halsey (2004). A History of Sociology in Britain: Science, Literature, and Society. OUP Oxford.
Anna-K. Mayer (2000). Setting Up a Discipline: Conflicting Agendas of the Cambridge History of Science Committee, 1936–1950. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 31 (4):665-689.
G. Burniston Brown (1939). Background to Modern Science. Ten Lectures at Cambridge Arranged by the History of Science Committee. Edited by Joseph Needham and Walter Pagel . (London: Cambridge University Press. 1938. Pp. Xii + 243. Price 7s. 6d.). [REVIEW] Philosophy 14 (54):223-.
Anna-K. Mayer (2004). Setting Up a Discipline, II: British History of Science and “the End of Ideology”, 1931–1948. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 35 (1):41-72.
Joe Cain (ed.) (1943/2004). Exploring the Borderlands: Documents of the Committee on Common Problems of Genetics, Paleontology, and Systematics. American Philosophical Society.
Thomas Baldwin (ed.) (2003). The Cambridge History of Philosophy, 1870-1945. Cambridge University Press.
David L. Hull (2000). The Professionalization of Science Studies: Cutting Some Slack. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 15 (1):61-91.
J. Cain (2002). Epistemic and Community Transition in American Evolutionary Studies: The 'Committee on Common Problems of Genetics, Paleontology, and Systematics' (1942-1949). [REVIEW] Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 33 (2):283-313.
Hans Henrik Brydensholt (2000). The Legal Basis for the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty. Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):11-24.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads30 ( #46,331 of 722,704 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #20,344 of 722,704 )
How can I increase my downloads?