Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A Master of Science HistoryThe Genesis of Historical Research on the History of Geology, with Thoughts About Kirwan, de Luc, and Whiggery

A Master of Science History: The Genesis of Historical Research on the History of Geology, with... [A development of his PhD dissertation (1949), Charles Gillispie’s Genesis and geology (1951) was the first book to study the history of geology from the standpoint of a social historian of science. It has come to be regarded as an “enduring classic.” However, it had distinctive Whiggish and anachronistic features that might make it unacceptable for (e.g.) a doctoral dissertation today, in that two persons in particular (Kirwan and de Luc) were treated somewhat “uncharitably.” So today’s historian of science might want to criticize Genesis and geology for this reason. This raises the question of why it might be acceptable for an historian of science today to judge earlier historical texts by today’s standards but unacceptable to criticize earlier scientists in terms of later scientific theories or knowledge. An attempt is made to resolve this “paradox” by considering a hierarchy of levels: (i) the world; (ii) accounts of the world (science); (iii) accounts (e.g. histories) of science; (iv) histories of history of science; (v) histories of histories of histories of science; . . . ! Reviews or critiques of works at any given level are natural and acceptable (e.g. scientists evaluating previous science, or historians evaluating earlier historical work). But historians’ evaluation of earlier science in terms of modern science should be avoided. The situation is complicated, however, for the likes of Kirwan and de Luc as they were endeavouring to interweave their science and their theology, thereby themselves, in a sense, operating at more than one “level.” The problems that arise therewith for the historiographer are discussed.] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

A Master of Science HistoryThe Genesis of Historical Research on the History of Geology, with Thoughts About Kirwan, de Luc, and Whiggery

Part of the Archimedes Book Series (volume 30)
Editors: Buchwald, Jed Z.
Oldroyd, David
A Master of Science History — Dec 8, 2011
Download PDF
11 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/a-master-of-science-history-the-genesis-of-historical-research-on-the-mILJmM3Vsp

References (19)

Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Copyright
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
ISBN
978-94-007-2626-0
Pages
167 –177
DOI
10.1007/978-94-007-2627-7_10
Publisher site
See Chapter on Publisher Site

Abstract

[A development of his PhD dissertation (1949), Charles Gillispie’s Genesis and geology (1951) was the first book to study the history of geology from the standpoint of a social historian of science. It has come to be regarded as an “enduring classic.” However, it had distinctive Whiggish and anachronistic features that might make it unacceptable for (e.g.) a doctoral dissertation today, in that two persons in particular (Kirwan and de Luc) were treated somewhat “uncharitably.” So today’s historian of science might want to criticize Genesis and geology for this reason. This raises the question of why it might be acceptable for an historian of science today to judge earlier historical texts by today’s standards but unacceptable to criticize earlier scientists in terms of later scientific theories or knowledge. An attempt is made to resolve this “paradox” by considering a hierarchy of levels: (i) the world; (ii) accounts of the world (science); (iii) accounts (e.g. histories) of science; (iv) histories of history of science; (v) histories of histories of histories of science; . . . ! Reviews or critiques of works at any given level are natural and acceptable (e.g. scientists evaluating previous science, or historians evaluating earlier historical work). But historians’ evaluation of earlier science in terms of modern science should be avoided. The situation is complicated, however, for the likes of Kirwan and de Luc as they were endeavouring to interweave their science and their theology, thereby themselves, in a sense, operating at more than one “level.” The problems that arise therewith for the historiographer are discussed.]

Published: Dec 8, 2011

Keywords: Gillispie; Genesis and geology; history of geology; historiography; Whig; Whiggish; anachronism; Kirwan; de Luc; levels

There are no references for this article.