Looking twice at the history of science

Friday, May 25, 2012

Why do they do it if there's something wrong with it?

version française -----------------------------------------------
If it is broke, why not fix it?
In previous posts on Will's picture I have said what historians do now according to that picture, and what is wrong with what they do now.

If something is wrong, why don't things change? Some answers are predictable: the situation makes historians feel good, and at any rate it can be rationalised. Others are deeper, arising from two entrenched habits. Firstly, our lack of methodological reflection means that we do not recognise the problem. Secondly, our poor record-keeping means that we forget aspects of our own past work, the work of past historians, and the past in general. Expand post.

No comments:

Post a Comment