The Shaping of Inquiry: Histories of the Exact Sciences after the Practical Turn

Kristian Camilleri

School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

DOI: 10.4236/ahs.2015.42008                

Abstract

In this paper I examine three emergent trends in praxis-oriented historiography that have underpinned historical studies of the exact sciences covering the period from 1750 to 1960. The first of these refers to what I call “tradition-centred” histories of scientific practice. This approach focuses on the formation of “cultures of practice” characterized by distinctive epistemic styles, which distinguish them from other such cultures. The second involves “tool-centred” histories of practice. This approach focuses on the way in which tools and techniques of inquiry open up new fields of inquiry, and the way in which the crafting of new tools and the refashioning of existing ones shape the dynamics of scientific practice. The third approach I examine relates to “actor-centred” histories, which typically take the form of biographical accounts focusing on the motivations, judgments and choices of individuals that shape scientific inquiry. This provide a useful analytic framework, in piecing together a broad picture of the different ways in which scientific inquiry is shaped and structured, and to see more clearly how different historiographical approaches complement one another in enriching our understanding of scientific practice.

Keywords

Scientific Practice, Historiography, Cultural History of Science

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Baigrie, B. (1995). Scientific Practice: The View from the Tabletop. In J. Buchwald (Ed.), Scientific Practice: Theories and Stories of Doing Physics (pp. 87-122). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
[2]	Brain, R., Cohen, R. S., & Knudsen, O. (Eds.) (2007). Hans Christian Ørsted and the Romantic Legacy in Science. Dordrecht: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2987-5
[3]	Buchwald, J. (2000). How the Ether Spawned the Microworld. In L. Daston (Ed.), Biographies of Scientific Objects (pp. 203-225). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
[4]	Buchwald, J. (Ed.) (1995). Scientific Practice: Theories and Stories of Doing Physics. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
[5]	Buchwald, J., & Hong, S. (2003). Physics. In D. Cahan (Ed.), From Natural Philosophy to the Sciences: Writing the History of Nineteenth Century Science (pp. 163-195). Chicago, IL and London: University of Chicago Press.
[6]	Caneva, K. L. (1978). From Galvinism to Electrodynamics: the Transformation of German Physics and its Social Context. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 9, 63-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/27757377
[7]	Cantor, G. (1991). Michael Faraday: Sandemanian and Scientist: A Study of Science and Religion in the Nineteenth Century. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan.
[8]	Chang, H. (2011). Compositionalism as a Dominant Way of Doing Chemistry. History of Science, 49, 247-268.
[9]	Darden, L., & Maull, N. (1977). Interfield Theories. Philosophy of Science, 44, 43-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/288723
[10]	Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.
[11]	Dewey, J. (1986). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The Later Works: 1925-1953 (Vol. 12). Carbondale, IL: SIU Press.
[12]	Elwick, J. (2012). Layered History: Styles of Reasoning as Stratified Conditions of Possibility. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 43, 619-627. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2012.07.004
[13]	Feest, U., & Sturm, T. (2011). What (Good) Is Historical Epistemology? Erkenntnis, 75, 285-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10670-011-9345-4
[14]	Forman, P. (1971). Weimar Culture, Causality and Quantum Theory, 1918-1927: Adaption by German Physicists and Mathematicians to a Hostile Intellectual Environment. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 3, 1-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/27757315
[15]	Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish. New York: Pantheon Books.
[16]	Fox, R. (1974). The Rise and Fall of Laplacian Physics. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 4, 89-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/27757328
[17]	Frankel, E. (1977). J. B. Biot and the Mathematization of Experimental Physics in Napoleonic France. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 8, 33-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/27757367
[18]	Galison, P. (1997). Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
[19]	Galison, P. (1999). Trading Zone: Coordinating Action and Belief. In M. Biagioli (Eds.), Science Studies Reader (pp. 137- 160). New York: Routledge.
[20]	Galison, P. (2008). Ten Problems of History and Philosophy of Science. Isis, 99, 111-124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/587536
[21]	Galison, P., & Warwick, A., (1998). Introduction: Cultures of Theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 29, 287-294.
[22]	Gaukroger, S. (1995). Descartes: An Intellectual Biography. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[23]	Gigerenzer, G., Swijtink, Z., Porter, T., Daston, L., Beatty, J., & Kruger, L. (1990). The Empire of Chance: How Probability Changed Science and Everyday Life. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[24]	Golinski, J. (1990). Theories of Practice and the Practice of Theory: Sociological Approaches in the History of Science. Isis, 81, 492-505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/355457
[25]	Golinski, J. (2005). Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History of Science. Chicago, IL:: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226302324.001.0001
[26]	Gooding, D. (1985). “In Nature’s School”: Faraday as an Experimentalist. In D. Gooding, & F. A. James (Eds.), Faraday Rediscovered: Essays on the Life and Work of Michael Faraday 1791-1867 (pp. 105-135). London: Macmillan.
[27]	Gooding, D. (1990). Experiment and the Making of Meaning: Human Agency in Scientific Observation and Experiment. Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0707-2
[28]	Gordon, P., & McCormick, J. (2013). Weimar Thought: A Contested Legacy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[29]	Gower, B. (1973). Speculation in Physics: The History and Practice in Naturphilosophie. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 3, 301-356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(73)90015-0
[30]	Gower, B. (2005). The Metaphysics of Science in the Romantic Era. In D. Knight, & M. Eddy (Eds.), Science and Beliefs: From Natural Philosophy to Natural Science, 1700-1900 (pp. 17-29). Bulington, VT: Ashgate.
[31]	Hacking I. (2006). The Emergence of Probability: A Philosophical Study about Early Ideas about Probability, Induction and Statistical Inference. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511817557
[32]	Hacking, I. (1990). The Taming of Chance. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819766
[33]	Heilbron, J. (1990). Introductory Essay. In T. Frängsmyr, J. Heilbron, & R. Rider (Eds.), The Quantifying Spirit in the 18th Century (pp. 1-23). Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford: University of California Press.
[34]	Holmes, F. (2004). Investigative Pathways: Patterns and Stages in the Careers of Experimental Scientists. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
[35]	Holmes, F. (2009). Experimental Systems, Investigative Pathways and the Nature of Discovery. In J. Mehus, & T. Nickles (Eds.), Models of Discovery and Creativity (pp. 65-79). Dordrecht: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3421-2_5
[36]	Kaiser, D. (1994). Bringing the Actors Back on Stage: The Personal Context of the Einstein-Bohr Debate. British Journal for the History of Science, 27, 129-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007087400031861
[37]	Kaiser, D. (2005a). Drawing Theories Apart: The Dispersion of Feynman Diagrams in Postwar Physics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226422657.001.0001
[38]	Kaiser, D. (2005c). Making Tools Travel: Pedagogy and the Transfer of Skill in Postwar Theoretical Physics. In D. Kaiser (Ed.), Pedagogy and the Practice of Science: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (pp. 41-74). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[39]	Kaiser, D. (2005b). Introduction: Moving Pedagogy from the Periphery to the Center. In D. Kaiser (Ed.), Pedagogy and the Practice of Science: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (pp. 1-8). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[40]	Klein, U. (2001). Paper Tools in Experimental Cultures. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 32, 365-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0039-3681(01)00010-3
[41]	Lässig, S. (2008). Introduction: Biography in Modern History—Modern Historiography in Biography. In V. Bergham, & S. Lässig (Eds.), Biography between Structure and Agency: Central European Lives in International Historiography (pp. 1-26). New York, Oxford: Bergham Books.
[42]	Maienschein, J. (1991). Epistemic Styles in German and American Embryology. Science in Context, 4, 407-477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0269889700001034
[43]	Nye, M. J. (1993). National Styles? French and English Chemistry in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Osiris, 8, 30- 49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/368717
[44]	Nye, M. J. (2006). Scientific Biography: History of Science by Another Means? Isis, 97, 322-329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/504738
[45]	Olesko, K. (1991). Physics as a Calling: Discipline and Practice in the Königsberg Seminar for Physics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
[46]	Olesko, K. (2006). Science Pedagogy as a Category of Historical Analysis: Past, Present, and Future. Science and Education, 15, 863-880. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11191-005-2014-8
[47]	Oreskes, N., & Doel, R. E. (2008). The Physics and Chemistry of the Earth. In M. Nye (Ed.), The Cambridge History of Science, Vol. 5, The Modern Physical and Mathematical Sciences (pp. 538-557). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[48]	Pancaldi, G. (2003). Volta: Science and Culture in the Age of Enlightenment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[49]	Pickering, A. (1995). The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226668253.001.0001
[50]	Pickering. A. (Ed.) (1992). Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
[51]	Porter, T. (1986). The Rise of Statistical Thinking: 1820-1900. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[52]	Porter, T. (2008). Statistics and Physical Theories. In M. Nye (Ed.), The Cambridge History of Science: Vol. 5, The Modern Physical and Mathematical Sciences (pp. 488-504). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[53]	Rheinberger, H.-J. (2009). Experimental Reorientations. In G. Hon, J. Schickore, & F. Steinle (Eds.), Going Amiss in Experimental Research (pp. 75-90). New York: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8893-3_6
[54]	Rouse, J. (2003). Thomas Kuhn’s Philosophy of Scientific Practice. In T. Nickles (Ed.), Thomas Kuhn (pp. 101-121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[55]	Schuster, J. (2000). Internalist and Externalist Historiographies of the Scientific Revolution. In W. Applebaum (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of the Scientific Revolution: From Copernicus to Newton (pp. 334-6). UK: Taylor & Francis.
[56]	Schuster, J. (2013). Descartes-Agonistes: Physico-Mathematics, Method & Corpuscular Mechanism 1618-1633. Dordrecht: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4746-3
[57]	Seth, S. (2010). Crafting the Quantum: Arnold Sommerfeld and the Practice of theory, 1896-1926. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[58]	Shapin, S. (1992). Discipline and Bounding: The History and Sociology of Science as seen through the Externalism-Internalism Debate. History of Science, 30, 333-369.
[59]	Sibum, O. (1995). Reworking the Mechanical Value of Heat: Instruments of Precision and Gestures of Accuracy in Early Victorian England. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 26, 73-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(94)00036-9
[60]	Smith, C., & Wise, M. N. (1989). Energy and Empire: A Biographical Study of Lord Kelvin. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
[61]	Stauffer, R. C. (1957). Speculation and Experiment in the Background of Oersted’s Discovery of Electromagnetism. Isis, 48, 33-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/348537
[62]	Steinle, F. (2002). Experiments in History and Philosophy of Science. Perspectives on Science, 10, 408-432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/106361402322288048
[63]	Steinle, F. (2003). The Practice of Studying Practice: Analyzing Research Records of Ampère and Faraday. In F. Holmes, J. Renn, & H.-J. Rheinberger (Eds.), Reworking the Bench: Research Notebooks in the History of Science (pp. 93-117). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
[64]	Stölzner, M. (2011). The Causality Debates of the Interwar Years and Their Preconditions: Revisiting the Forman Thesis from a Broader Perspective. In C. Carson, A. Kojevnikov, & H. Trischler (Eds.), Weimar Culture and Quantum Mechanics. Selected Papers by Paul Forman and Contemporary Perspectives on the Forman Thesis (pp. 502-22). London: Imperial College Press.
[65]	Vicedo, M. (1995). Scientific Styles: Toward Some Common Ground in the History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Science. Perspectives on Science, 3, 231-254.
[66]	Warwick, A. (2003). Masters of Theory: Cambridge and the Rise of Mathematical Physics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226873763.001.0001
[67]	Warwick, A., & Kaiser, D. (2005). Kuhn, Foucault, and the Power of Pedagogy. In D. Kaiser (Ed.), Pedagogy and the Practice of Science: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (pp. 393-409). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[68]	Wise, M. N. (2011). Forman Reformed Again. In C. Carson, A. Kojevnikov, & H. Trischler (Eds.), Weimar Culture and Quantum Mechanics. Selected Papers by Paul Forman and Contemporary Perspectives on the Forman Thesis (pp. 415-432). London: Imperial College Press.
[69]	Wise, M. N. (Ed.) (1997). The Values of Precision. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[70]	Zittel, C. (2012). Ludwik Fleck and the Concept of Style in the Natural Sciences. Studies of Eastern European Thought, 64, 53-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11212-012-9160-8