Whigs, prigs and historians of science

@article{Harrison1987WhigsPA,
  title={Whigs, prigs and historians of science},
  author={Edward Robert Harrison},
  journal={Nature},
  year={1987},
  volume={329},
  pages={213-214}
}
The whig interpretation of history, which evaluates the past in terms of the present, is derided by the new historians of science. But their own anti-whig interpretation is priggish and fails to appreciate the temporal depth of scientific research. 
Historiography of science and technology in focus. A discussion with Professor Robert Fox
The article is an extended discussion with a laureate of numerous international distinctions, Professor Robert Fox, about his career, intellectual fascinations, as well as changing methods, styles,Expand
Is the History of Science Essentially Whiggish?
1. THE STIGMATIC LABEL OF 'WHIGGISM'In his influential 1931 essay The Whig interpretation of history, Herbert Butterfield criticized what he called the "Whig history", the "study of the past for theExpand
Butterfield’s nightmare: the history of science as Disney history
Historians of science and technology once worried about the anachronism that suffused their discipline. Today there is less patience for such critical self-reflection. There are however still certainExpand
Beyond the Whig history interpretation of history: lessons on ‘presentism’ from Hélène Metzger
Abstract During the second half of the twentieth century, historians of science have shown a considerable interest in ‘presentism’, a term first applied to the kind of history of science in whichExpand
HISTÓRIA DA CIÊNCIA: OBJETOS, MÉTODOS E PROBLEMAS History of Science: purposes, methods and problems
The aim of this paper is to help people who are starting History of Science research, especially con- cerning a definite kind of work to which we dedicate ourselves. It deals with the choice of aExpand
The new history of psychology: a review and critique.
TLDR
It is argued that many scholars exaggerate the differences between old and new history of psychology, and that where the differences are indeed large, those discrepancies reveal certain limitations unique to the new history approach. Expand
The Practitioner of Science: Everyone her Own Historian
Carl Becker's classic 1931 address ``Everyman his own historian''holds lessons for historians of science today. Like the professional historians he spoke to, we are content to displaythe Ivory-TowerExpand
Pluralism within Parameters : towards a mature evaluative historiography of science
Historiography of science is in its current self-image a non-evaluative discipline. Its main goal is to understand past processes of knowledge formation on their own terms. In the last few decadesExpand
The Different Strategies in Historiography of Science.: Tensions between Professional Research and Postmodern Ignorance
History of science, as a branch of knowledge, is a discipline of two countenances. On the one hand, as a kind of history, it is one of the humanistic disciplines. As this type of discipline itExpand
Thinking about ‘Presentism’ from a Historian's Perspective: Herbert Butterfield and Hélène Metzger
Through an examination of the considerable bibliography of the concept of ‘presentism’, I have reached several conclusions concerning the different uses of this concept in the field of the history ofExpand
...
1
2
3
4
...

References

SHOWING 1-5 OF 5 REFERENCES
The Whig interpretation of history
It is not as easy to understand the past as many who have written it would have us believe. The historians who look at it from the Protestant, progressive, "19th Century gentleman" viewpoint areExpand
Whigs and professionals
In recent years study of the history of science has been transformed. Colin Russell discusses the change in attitudes.
Should the History of Science Be Rated X?
I suggest that the teacher who wants to indoctrinate his students in the traditional role of the scientist as a neutral fact finder should not use historical materials of the kind now being preparedExpand
In Defense of Presentism
L. Pearce Williams was so irate over Joseph Agassi's book on Michael Faraday and the section on Faraday in a book by William Berkson that he was moved to entitle his review "Should Philosophers BeExpand