Why Does History Matter to the Science Studies Disciplines? A Case for Giving the Past Back Its Future

Science and technology studies has perhaps provided the most ambitious set of challenges to the boundary separating history and philosophy of science since the 19th century idealists and positivists. STS is normally associated with `social constructivism', which when applied to history of science highlights the malleability of the modal structure of reality. Specifically, changes to what is implies changes to what has been, can be and might be. Latour's account of Pasteur's scientific achievement is a case in point. Two polar attitudes towards the world's modal malleability are identified: over - and under - determination, which correspond, respectively, to a belief in the inevitability and the precariousness of science as a form of knowledge. The distinctness of these positions reflects a cordon sanitaire between the history and the philosophy of science. Consequently, historical agents are not given full voice as constructors of reality: They are either quarantined to a foreign realm called `the past' by the historian or selectively assimilated to an imperial present by the philosopher. The second half of the essay explores what it might mean to restore a robust sense of reality construction to the historical agents. My case in point here is that of the 13th century Franciscan friar, Roger Bacon, who has been alternatively seen as a mad medieval or a proto-modernist. To give Bacon full voice would involve taking the future that he envisaged as a normative benchmark for judging our own world
Keywords social epistemology   counterfactuals   history and philosophy of science   underdetermination   re-enactment   overdetermination   normative historiography
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1163/187226311X599952
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 23,674
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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Cassandra Pinnick & George Gale (2000). Philosophy of Science and History of Science: A Troubling Interaction. [REVIEW] Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 31 (1):109-125.
Nancy L. Maull (1976). Reconstructed Science as Philosophical Evidence. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1976:119-129.
Marga Vicedo (1992). Is the History of Science Relevant to the Philosophy of Science? PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:490 - 496.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

37 ( #128,805 of 1,903,042 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #324,600 of 1,903,042 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.