Article Title：Why study history for science?''
Abstract：
David Hull has demonstrated a marvelous ability to annoy everyone who cares about science (or should), by forcing us to confront deep truths about how science works. Credit, priority, precularities, and process weave together to make the very fabric of science. As Hull's studies reveal, the story is both messier and more irritating than those limited by a single disciplinary perspective generally admit. By itself history is interesting enough, and philosophy valuable enough. But taken together, they do so much in telling us about science and by puncturing the comfortable popular illusion about how science works. Ultimately, David Hull shows by his example that history and philosophy of science can make science better. I agree, and with its focus on the history of science in particular, this paper explores why.
Keywords: historiography of science; interdisciplinary studies; scientific change
DOI: 10.1023/A:1006733114136
Source：BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY
Welcome to correct the error, please contact email: humanisticspider@gmail.com
