|Abstract||ABSTRACT: Since its inception in the eighteenth century, the discipline of the history of science has served a motley collection of extrinsic disciplinary interests, philosophical ideas, and cultural movements. This paper examines the historiographical implications of modernism and postmodernism and shows how they influenced positivist, postpositivist, and sociological interpretations of the Chemical Revolution. It also shows how these interpretations served the disciplinary interests of science, philosophy, and sociology, respectively, and it points toward a model of the history of science as history.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Bruce E. Fleming (1995). Modernism and its Discontents: Philosophical Problems of Twentieth-Century Literary Theory. P. Lang.
Joyce Oldham Appleby (ed.) (1996). Knowledge and Postmodernism in Historical Perspective. Routledge.
Nigel Blake (1996). Between Postmodernism and Anti-Modernism: The Predicament of Educational Studies. British Journal of Educational Studies 44 (1):42 - 65.
John G. McEvoy (2000). In Search of the Chemical Revolution: Interpretive Strategies in the History of Chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry 2 (1):47-73.
John McEvoy McEvoy, Whither the History of Science: Philosophical Reflectioin on the Historiograph of the Chemical Revolution.
Aleš Erjavec (2008). Postmodernism, Postsocialism and Beyond. Cambridge Scholars.
Roy A. Moxley (1999). The Two Skinners, Modern and Postmodern. Behavior and Philosophy 27 (2):97 - 125.
J. C. D. Clark (2003/2004). Our Shadowed Present: Modernism, Postmodernism, and History. Stanford University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #107,331 of 722,764 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,764 )
How can I increase my downloads?