Skip to main content

Do Historians and Philosophers of Science Share the Same Heritage?

  • Chapter
Nature Mathematized

Part of the book series: The University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science ((WONS,volume 20))

Abstract

There is an obvious and trivial sense in which the answer to this question can only be in the affirmative. Historians and philosophers of science study the same phenomenon and hence share the same field of enquiry. But the interesting question, of course, is whether they meet on that common ground, not merely as individuals politely exchanging comments about the weather but as scholars who have something to learn from one another. In other words, do historians and philosophers of science profit from an exchange of ideas about their different ways of looking at science?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Robert E. Butts, ‘Methodology and the Functional Identity of Science and Philosophy’, in J. Hintikka, D. Gruender and E. Agassi, Pisa Conference Proceedings, D. Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht, Holland, 1980, Vol. II, pp. 253–270.

    Google Scholar 

  2. I. Bernard Cohen, ‘History and the Philosophy of Science’, in Frederick Suppe (ed.), The Structure of Scientific Theories, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1974, p. 310, n. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  3. See, for instance, I. L. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (ed.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rudolf Carnap, Logical Foundations of Probability, second edition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962, pp. 3 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  5. See, for instance, J. C. C. McKinsey, A. C. Sugar, and Patrick Suppes, ‘Axiomatic Foundations of Classical Mechanics’, Journal of Rational Mechanics and Analysis 2 (1953), pp. 253–272.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Paul A. Schilpp (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, Open Court, La Salle, Ill., 1963, p. 935.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Rudolf Carnap, Logical Foundations of Probability, Chicago University Press, Chicago, 19622, p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ernst Mach, The Science of Mechanics, trans, by Thomas J. McCormack, Open Court, La Salle, Ill., 1960, p. 169.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Alexandre Koyré, Galileo Studies, translated by John Mepham, Humanities Press, New Jersey, 1978, pp. 129–236.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Galileo, Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche intorno a due nuove scienze in Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, A Favaro (ed.), 20 vols. G. Barbèra, Florence, 1890-1909. Vol. VIII, p. 243.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ibid., p. 268.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ibid., p. 275.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ibid., p. 274-275.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Galileo Istoria e dimostrazioni intorno alle macchie solari in Opere, Vol. V, p. 134.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ibid., pp. 134-135.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Isaac Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, A. Koyré and I. B. Cohen (eds.), 2 vols. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1972, Vol. I, p. 54. See I. B. Cohen, ‘Newton’s Second Law and the Concept of Force in the PrincipiaTexas Quarterly 10(1967), 125-157.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 764.

    Google Scholar 

  18. William Kneale, Probability and Induction, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1966, p. 99.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ibid., p. 100.

    Google Scholar 

  20. See I. B. Cohen’s excellent essay ‘Hypotheses in Newton’s Philosophy’, Physis 8 (1977), pp. 163–184.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Galileo, Two New Sciences, trans, by Henry Grew and Alfonso de Salvio. New York: Dover, no date, p. 213. The original reads: “symptomatum tarnen, quae complura et scitu digna insunt in eo, aduc inobservata, necdum indemonstrata, comperio” (Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, Vol. VIII, p. 190).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Alexandre Koyré, ‘Traduttore-traditore, à propos de Copernic et de Galilée’, Isis 34 (1943), pp. 209–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Galileo, Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo in Opere, Vol. VII, pp. 169–171.

    Google Scholar 

  24. I. B. Cohen, ‘History and the Philosophy of Science’, p. 340.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Arnold Thackray, John Dalton, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gerald Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Throught, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1974, pp. 261–352.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Peter Achinstein, The Concepts of Science, The Johns Hopkins Press, Blatimore, 1968, pp. 209–225.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1983 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Shea, W.R. (1983). Do Historians and Philosophers of Science Share the Same Heritage?. In: Shea, W.R. (eds) Nature Mathematized. The University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, vol 20. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6957-5_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6957-5_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-009-6959-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-6957-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics