>"For my own part, I do think that one of the tasks of the history of
science and medicine is to chart the trajectory of progress (however we
choose to define it) in an open-minded and expansive way that tries as
far as possible to avoid writing a history that celebrates the 'winners'
and elides the 'losers,' even as it acknowledges that some concepts and
methods have a basis in reality and others don't. In part because being
too quick to distribute laurels and dunce caps can lead us into
unjustified and overly hasty binaries. Not all pre-1800 physicians were
astrologers or quacks; not all who quote Shapin or Butterfield are
ardent proponents of the Strong Programme."
Ben, it's an excellent article. Thanks.
I'm curious if you believe the unjustified and overly hasty dualism is
becoming more or less prevalent?
Since the winners versus losers dichotomy implies competition, another
way to rephrase the same question could be, "Is competition increasing,
decreasing, or staying about the same?"
Whether it's fame and credit for a scientific discovery, or likes and
karma points, or any of the many other mostly fabricated and unnecessary
competitions, to me it seems society is trending more towards divisive
competition rather than beneficial collaboration. Then again, I don't
know nearly as much history as you do. ;)
How to write the history of science? First, watch James Burke's histories - Connections[1] and The Day The Universe Changed - for his non-teleological view of change.
Connections is an important examination about the trajectory of progress. Burke's premise - which I agree with strongly - is that change is not predictable. We can, at best, make educated guesses about the future and be prepared for those guesses to be completely wrong more often than we like.
The conclusions here - which is very relevant to teaching both science and its history - is the importance of involving normal people in this rapidly accelerating rate of change. Why involve people? Because technology is a trap if you don't know how to build it. Do you think of the trap you are walking into (if the power fails) every time you enter an elevator? The history of science is a series of ever more complex traps... that happen to give us incredible benefit as long as we are careful not to get caught.
The Day The Universe Change is a different focus, about how science changes our understanding of the world around us. That is, our universe changes with each discovery.
For those of you who haven't watched Burke's TV series (the two above, also the Connections3 miniseries), please check them out. You will learn linkages in technology and history you never imagined, and Burke is a fantastic host and explainer.
It's somewhat dated now, but I loved Asimov's Intelligent Man's Guide to Science[1] when I picked it up at a used book sale in junior high. I felt it was great for putting the history of science in context in a way that I never really got from my actual schooling.
Another good one is The Dancing Universe[2], which I got as a textbook for some sort of history/philosophy of science course in undergrad.
I can't not mention Joseph Needham, British biochemist, who developed an interest in things Chinese.
In the early 1950s, Needham wrote a proposal for what he suggested might be a one-volume work covering the history of Chinese scientific, mathematical, engineering, and other arts. As of 2016, there are 24 volumes of the work completed, with another three still in process (Needham himself died in 1995).
The story is the subject of journalist and author Simon Winchester's book, The Man Who Loved China. There are also several condensations and abridged summaries of Needham's work, including the single-volume The Genius of China (1986) and a five volume work, The Shorter Science and Civilisation.
The organisation and treatment of the work (detailed in the first and second volumes of Needham's original, and in the summaries and Winchester's account) are instructive as to how to write a history of science.
Ludwik Fleck's "Genesis and development of a scientific fact" goes very much in the line of looking at science as a gradual progress, with many failed attempts. written by winners. (Written pre-WW2; it served as an inspiration for Khun.) Its most eye-opening example is the history of [the concept/knowledge/science/... of] syphilis, from ancient to modern times. PDF (of print from 1979): http://www.evolocus.com/Textbooks/Fleck1979.pdf
I have a related nuts&bolts question. I have started to research the history of my field, mostly dating from the 1940s to 1970. It's a small field (chemical information). The histories are mostly written by the practitioners, who describe what they did, their influences, etc.
This is one of many ways to do history. Historians also approach it in other ways. I would like to learn more about some of those ways, so I can be better at researching my topic.
Can anyone recommend a book along the lines of "So you to be a science historian" or "how to learn to write the history of science"? The book mentioned here, "The Invention of Science", sounds like it's too high of a level - though it does sound interesting.
Thanks for the links. They appear to be on the wrong level for what I'm interested in learning, though I need to look closer look at the historiography books, like "The Historian's Craft".
Cool. I asked a couple friends, and one has a friend who is a professional science historian, so waiting to hear from her and I'll pass along any response she might have as well.
I'm not sure any such book exists, but the names that come up all the time in history of science discussions (Herbert Butterfield, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn) are a good place to start. I'd add Lorraine Daston, Roy Porter, Simon Schaffer, and Mario Biagioli to that. I unfortunately don't know anything about chemical information so I can't help you there, but the authors I mentioned are all good for general insights.
Thanks! I've heard of Popper and Kuhn, but just be seeing those names (and looking up the others), I realize I structured my question poorly.
In last year's CACM article "The Tears of Donald Knuth", Thomas Haigh writes about Knuth's Kailath lecture titled, "Let's Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science", concerning "The History of the History of Software", at http://www.thecorememory.com/THTHS.pdf. Knuth presents the reasons he studies history, then describes how he believes historians no longer care about the subject matter itself, outside of some historians of mathematics.
Haigh's commentary, available at http://mags.acm.org/communications/january_2015?folio=40&pg=... , gives a more sociological explanation for the types of history that Knuth wants to read - "Historical work on computing framed primarily as a contribution to computer science", vs. the "Historical work on computing framed primarily as a contribution to a subfield of history or science studies" which is more common for trained historians, and how it fits into funding and research structures.
I understand how to do the sort of history that Knuth is interested in, because I am deeply embedded in the chemical information world. I also know that many people have worked on these sorts of histories, even if Haigh and Knuth say it's less common now. Are there any lessons from those experiences? If so, how do I learn about them?
In addition, Haigh writes "The truth is that regrettably little history of computer science, whether dumb or deep, has been written by trained historians even though the history of computing literature as a whole has been expanding rapidly."
What are the tools, methods, and approaches that a trained historian can bring to the field? Should I learn any of those methods to improve how I do my research? Should I consider taken some graduate level courses on the topic?
On this nuts&bolts of doing history, I know nothing, and wonder if there is some way to find out.
I see better what you're getting at now - those are great questions! I wish I had good answers to give, but it's hard to give advice beyond saying that you should indeed look into auditing a graduate history of science course or two. I heard that U Penn just hired an historian of computing and I have the impression that the history of information and computer science is becoming kind of trendy lately. It would be worth looking around at the new faculty in the main history of science departments who study something you're interested in and emailing them.
The whole question of how and to what degree having domain expertise helps understand the history of science is a pretty thorny one. Sometimes having technical expertise in the field you're trying to study the history of (a cardiac surgeon reading about the discovery of the circulation of blood, for instance) can actually be a hindrance because it tends to create an "well surely I could have thought of that!" kind of attitude. I think this is on display in Weinberg's writings on the history of mechanics and physics, where he basically calls Aristotle a dummy, etc. It leads to a smoothing over of the difficulties faced by people who had to puzzle out the problems themselves rather than read them in a textbook when they were kids. On the other hand, Weinberg's book is fantastic on the actual content of, say, Copernican dynamics, because he's basically a genius so he's able to understand past scientific theories on a deep level that someone like me can't.
The person who taught me history of science in grad school had a BA in physics and a PhD in history, which I think is about perfect for what's required - he understood the underlying material on a technical level and had a good mind for it, but his graduate training allowed him to step back from the actual content and get a new perspective on its historical significance, something which a participant in the field itself might not be able to see. Now, as to what that significance actually is and what tools historians bring to bear on it, it's highly dependent on what subfield we're talking about. In this person's context, his work lead from James Maxwell's work on electricity to the study of telegraph cables as a force of globalization. So basically moving from the realm of theory to how it was implemented as technology and the social effects of that shift.
Ben, it's an excellent article. Thanks.
I'm curious if you believe the unjustified and overly hasty dualism is becoming more or less prevalent?
Since the winners versus losers dichotomy implies competition, another way to rephrase the same question could be, "Is competition increasing, decreasing, or staying about the same?"
Whether it's fame and credit for a scientific discovery, or likes and karma points, or any of the many other mostly fabricated and unnecessary competitions, to me it seems society is trending more towards divisive competition rather than beneficial collaboration. Then again, I don't know nearly as much history as you do. ;)