This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The answer to this question must, in some form, inform the method in which the history of science and technology is conducted, and, in reverse, how the history of science and technology is conducted, and what it concludes, can inform the answer to the question.
Kind of an awkward sentence, I don't really know what it's trying to convey by the end.
The question itself contains an entire host of philosophical questions
Questions, questions... un-selfconscious word repetition is a drag.
Lucidish 00:25, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Glad to see this. I don't have much if anything to contribute to the substance, but I'm doing a bit of farbling with some sentences that I think can be made to read more smoothly. Dandrake 22:56, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
"Connection between economy and knowledge" in the comments on Heesen: shouldn't that be economics? Or economic systems (or the economy)? "Economy" is defensible, but it mainly makes one think of money-saving.
On the problematic sentence that Lucidish noted: I've made a little edit to reduce the reliance on commas, but on re-reading a few times I think it needs more work. Gratuitous advice, worth every penny: It looks like one of those things in which one has got too deeply involved in polishing a succinct statement, and it has to be torn up and re-done. My own approach would be to stand up, ask myself "Just what am I trying to say here?" and pace around constructing a few disjointed simple declarative sentences; then try to paste that back together in actual prose. It ends up longer, which one was trying to avoid—but one was wrong. But I don't know if this suits your working style at all. (Looks as if my opinion is that it needs loosening, not tightening.) Dandrake 23:21, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
I moved this from my user page to the main article namespace, retitling it "Historiography of science", at the suggestion of another editor. There are still uncompleted sections, clearly. If anyone wants a copy of the Dennis article I cited in order to work on this in an informed manner, use the "E-mail this user" function and I'll forward it to you. -- Fastfission 17:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I think a discussion about various terminology may be useful. The confusion seems to appear not only here, but at various websites (the last link at the bottom of this article itself quotes a scholar who uses a different definition than the one at the article), among books, articles, and dictionaries. The problem is that there are layers upon layers of study and processes going on. Here is a schematic table showing my own understanding of the relationships:
TYPE OF EVENT | SUBJECT MATTER | FIRST OCCURENCE | PRODUCT |
Natural events | N/A | Creation of universe | N/A |
Science | Natural events | Human prehistory | Ancient understanding of universe |
Modern science | Natural events | Scientific revolution | Scientific laws/theories |
History of science | Science/modern science | 17th century | Historical (auto-)biographies |
Modern history of science | Science/modern science | Early 20th century | Historical descriptions of science; analysis of the development of scientific methods and theories |
Historiography of science | History of science | Circa 1960s/1970s | Historical descriptions of the history of science as a discipline; analysis of how historical circumstances affected descriptions of science |
Note that the last 2 entries are not the same. The problem is that many authors use the term "historiography" to denote the process of writing history, as well as the study of the process. Also, in the article, what does the frequent term "the study of the history of science" mean? Does it refer to "history of science" or "historiography of science" as described above? It makes a big difference. Revolver 19:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I've put facts on most of the stuff on Kuhn. It's worded relatively NPOV but it sounds weasely without the sources.
E.G.
Who used the phrase "march of progress?"
and
How? And isn't Kuhn's book's influence outside of academia off-topic anyways?
and
Who were the critics?
Thanks, -- M a s 01:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we remove the section Disciplinary Figures and the associated lists. These lists can easily be handled (and kept curent) by putting links to the existing lists in the See Also section. -- SteveMcCluskey 16:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The entry does not make the trivial distinction between the history of science and the historiography of science. In fact it conflates them, perhaps deliberatly, in the opening sentence. I will mend that, and see, with your permission, where it takes the entry. I shall conentrate on the opening paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shandorsan ( talk • contribs) 06:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)