History of the Human Sciences 23 (4):105-108 (2010)

Authors
Abstract
History of science is, we are told, an important subject for study. Its rise in recent years to become a ‘stand alone’ discipline has been mirrored by an expansion of popular history of science texts available in bookstores. Given this, it is perhaps surprising that little attention has been given to how history of science is written. This article attempts to do that through constructing a typology of histories of science based upon a consideration of audiences who read these texts and writers who construct them. It identifies four ideal types of history of science which describe the opposite poles of two continua running from exoteric to esoteric. The article also examines the content of a sample of history of science texts and finds that often these texts, whether esoteric or exoteric, provide only a chronology of events, avoiding discussion or even mention of wider social, economic and political contexts. Such histories serve to reinforce a ‘standard’ account of science as ‘separate’ from the rest of society, an account that is at odds with almost all contemporary sociology of science and science and technology studies. This prompts the question: why should I read histories of science?
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1177/0952695110372026
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 59,677
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

History of Science for its Own Sake?Steve Fuller - 2010 - History of the Human Sciences 23 (4):95-99.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Why Mark Erickson Should Read Different Histories of Science.Patricia Fara - 2010 - History of the Human Sciences 23 (4):92-94.
Remedios and Fuller on Normativity and Science.Joseph Rouse - 2003 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 33 (4):464-471.
Policing Knowledge: Disembodied Policy for Embodied Knowledge.Joseph Rouse - 1991 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 34 (3-4):353 – 364.
Why Write Histories of Science?Joseph Rouse - 2010 - History of the Human Sciences 23 (4):100-104.
Who Hid the Body? Rouse, Roth, and Woolgar on Social Epistemology.Steve Fuller - 1991 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 34 (3-4):391 – 400.
Getting Real with Rouse and Heidegger.Jeff Kochan - 2011 - Perspectives on Science 19 (1):81-115.
Social Epistemology, Second Edition.Steve Fuller - 2002 - Indiana University Press.
A Fuller Vision of Thomas Kuhn: Response to Roth and Mirowski.Steve Fuller - 2001 - History of the Human Sciences 14 (2):111-117.
Fuller and Rouse on the Legitimation of Scientific Knowledge.Francis Remedios - 2003 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 33 (4):444-463.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-02-04

Total views
9 ( #904,990 of 2,432,218 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #466,747 of 2,432,218 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes