Advertisement

From One Gnomon to Two Gnomons: A Methodological Study of the Method of Double Differences

  • Ko-Wei Lih
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 141)

Abstract

“Philosophy of science without history of science is empty; history of science without philosophy of science is blind.” Taking its cue from this paraphrase of Kant’s famous dictum, Imre Lakatos in his ‘History of science and its rational reconstruction’1 explained how the historiography of science should learn from the philosophy of science and vice versa. He argued that

(a) philosophy of science provides normative methodologies in terms of which the historian reconstructs ‘internal history’ and thereby provides a rational explanation of the growth of objective knowledge; (b) two competing methodologies can be evaluated with the help of (normatively interpreted) history; (c) any rational reconstruction of history needs to be supplemented by an empirical (socio-psychological) ‘external history’.

Keywords

Double Difference Front Pole Rational Reconstruction Subsolar Point Scientific Research Programme 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. An Tian Se and Swetz, F. J.: 1986, ‘A Chinese mathematical classic of the third century: The Sea Island Mathematical Manual of Liu Hui’, Historia Mathematica 13, 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bai Shangshu: 1982, ‘An investigation into the techniques in Liu Hui’s “The Sea Island Mathematical Manual” ’,Collection of Papers on the History of Science and Technology 8, 79–87.Google Scholar
  3. Chemla, Karine: 1987, ‘Should they read Fortran as if it were English?’ Bulletin of Chinese Studies of the University of Hong Kong 1, 301–316.Google Scholar
  4. Fu, Daiwie: 1988, ‘A study on the historical development and transformation of Chou-Pi research tradition’, Bulletin of Tsing Hua University, New Series 18, 1–41.Google Scholar
  5. Lakatos, Imre: 1976, Proofs and Refutations: the Logic of Mathematical Discovery, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lakatos, Imre: 1978, The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes ,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Li Di: 1987, The algorithmic nature of the Chinese traditional mathematics’, Bulletin of Chinese Studies of the University of Hong Kong 1, 219–232.Google Scholar
  8. Lih, Ko-Wei: 1987, A preliminary investigation into the inner logical context of Chong Cha ’, Science Monthly 16, 121–126.Google Scholar
  9. Li Jimin: 1982, The theory of proportions in “Jiu Zhang Suanshu , in Wu Wenjun (ed.), Jiu Zhang Suanshu and Liu Hui ,pp. 228–245, Beijing Normal University, Beijing.Google Scholar
  10. Wu Wenjun: 1982, ’Recovering the proofs of “Haidao Suanjing” in Wu Wenjun (ed.), Jiu Zhang Suanshu and Liu Hui ,pp. 162–180, Beijing Normal University, Beijing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ko-Wei Lih

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations