5

Is there a consensus amongst historians as to the principles of the historiography of science or as to how to write/create/preserve/record history? If there is, then what are those principles? If there isn't, what are the major positions regarding the historiography of the sciences?

References that center on such questions would be very much appreciated!

BTW tried to associate a tag 'historiography' or otherwise a tag 'history of history of science' with my question but could not find either such...

Louis
  • 343
  • 1
  • 5
  • 1
    I recently read David Wootton's The Invention of Science. In it, Wootton goes to considerable length in discussing how post-modernist attitudes are becoming more common in the history of science. Indeed, he suggests that this is now the majority view, painting himself as a lone voice. Therefore, my impression is that any consensus which may have existed is weakening. – nwr Jun 19 '19 at 21:43
  • 1
    There is a lasting divide between historians' and field experts' takes on history, explainable by their divergent purposes (history vs heritage, in Grattan-Guiness's terms). The former turned away from rational reconstructions, internal "objectivism", modernizations, and Whiggishness about science, attention to social context and "their own terms" being the governing maxims. See review in Wikipedia, and a similar thread on math. – Conifold Jun 20 '19 at 04:25
  • 1
    I would recommend following the style and content of Holmes' Age of Wonder https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001NLL568/ . I found it accurate, readable, and completely engrossing. (and well referenced) – Carl Witthoft Jun 20 '19 at 13:42

0 Answers0