
How to Write the History of Science? - benbreen
http://resobscura.blogspot.com/2016/02/how-to-write-history-of-science.html
======
jcr
>" _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. ;)

------
pdkl95
> trajectory of progress

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.

[1] The original 1978 series.

~~~
DrScump
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.

------
yyyuuu
There aren't many books which are as popular as _A Short History of nearly
everything_ by Bill Bryson.

It is funny and easy read, yet covers a lot of ground. Also brings to the fore
the eccentric characters of Science community in a sincere manner

~~~
douche
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.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intelligent_Man%27s_Guide_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intelligent_Man%27s_Guide_to_Science)

[2] [http://amzn.to/1Sv6qV7](http://amzn.to/1Sv6qV7)

------
dredmorbius
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.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Needham](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Needham)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Civilisation_in_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Civilisation_in_China)

------
stared
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](http://www.evolocus.com/Textbooks/Fleck1979.pdf)

------
dalke
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.

The author points to
[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22department+of+the+history...](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22department+of+the+history+of+science%22)
. Perhaps I should just cold-call someone ...

~~~
waterlesscloud
You could try asking this on reddit, in particular /r/askhistorians.

One of my favorite subs, and they provide great answers to similar questions
on a regular basis.

Their related FAQ answer on historiography books may be helpful too-
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/books/historiogr...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/books/historiography)

Edit- also related, a topic on making a history of science reading list.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/zahv0/meta_h...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/zahv0/meta_history_of_science_reading_list/)

~~~
dalke
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".

I posted my question yesterday to Reddit, as you suggested. It's at
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/44s7ak/how_t...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/44s7ak/how_to_learn_the_nutsbolts_of_becoming_an/)
.

~~~
waterlesscloud
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.

~~~
dalke
Thanks!

