Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

History and Philosophy of Science: Between Description and Construction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
New Directions in the Philosophy of Science

Part of the book series: The Philosophy of Science in a European Perspective ((PSEP,volume 5))

Abstract

In light of the numerous programs and departments in “History and Philosophy of Science (HPS) – I here include also technology and sociology of science – the rather weak theoretical conceptualization of this field seems surprising. HPS is conceived of neither as a mere combination of history of science and philosophy of science, nor as a well-intentioned parallel action, so the question arises what the subject and method of this trans- and interdisciplinary field of research and teaching are. The recent demand for an “integrated HPS” indicates the need for closer and more intrinsic cooperation and interaction between history of science and philosophy of science (including the social and cultural sciences) from a theoretical and practical point of view such that no part of this joint scholarly enterprise is privileged. After revisiting specific episodes in the history of the philosophy of science I recommend some practices and outline related desiderata.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Accessed 19.6.2012: 71,700,000 and 782,000. In the English Wikipedia, they speak casually of an “academic discipline”.

  2. 2.

    ESF, ERIH-Index 2007. In the current index from 2009, one now only finds journals of philosophy of science, because the historians of science left the HPS-panel in sign of protest against the ERIH project, see the editorial in Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 32, 2 (2009): 131–134.

  3. 3.

    For example: “Philosophy of science without history of science is empty; history of science without philosophy of science is blind.” (Lakatos 1971, p. 91)

  4. 4.

    See the “Austrian classification of scientific disciplines” (Österreichische Systematik der Wissenschaftszweige), recommended by the FWF (Austrian Science Fund) for the disciplinary classification of project proposals: under the label “Geisteswissenschaften” (humanities), history and philosophy of science is seen as part of philosophy, while history of science as well as history of the social, the cultural, natural and the technical sciences is also classified under the label “historical sciences” (“Historische Wissenschaften”).

  5. 5.

    It is said that Kuhn was not happy as a member of the History Department in Berkeley, see Laudan (1990). Also, an Anglo-American specificity is the emergence of the Sociology of Science and Technology Studies (STS) and its (excluding or including) relation to HPS.

  6. 6.

    ESF-ERIH Website: www.esf.org

  7. 7.

    Stadler (2004).

  8. 8.

    Kuhn (1976, p. 4). This paper is based on a talk Kuhn gave at the Michigan State University in 1968.

  9. 9.

    Kuhn (1962/1970).

  10. 10.

    Kuhn (1976, p. 20).

  11. 11.

    Compare with Hoyningen-Huene (1991, p. 43): “First, historiography of science provides the basis for both philosophy and sociology of science in the sense that the fundamental questions of both disciplines depend on the principles of the form of historiography employed. Second, the fusion of sociology and philosophy of science, as advocated by Kuhn, […] consists essentially in a replacement of methodological rules by cognitive values that influence the decisions of scientific communities. As a consequence, the question of the rationality of theory choice arises, both with respect to the actual decisions and to the possible justification of cognitive values and their change.”

  12. 12.

    Laudan (1990, p. 50). Compare also with Laudan (1978).

  13. 13.

    See Stadler (2010a) and Reisch (2005).

  14. 14.

    Within the limits of this paper, we cannot deal with the strong renaissance of the research on Fleck. Also, the forgotten dialogue of European philosophers with the French philosophy of science before World War II would need a more extensive research. See Nemeth and Roudet (2005) and Fleck (2011).

  15. 15.

    Stadler (2010b).

  16. 16.

    One of the last volumes of the series (vol. 263) of the “Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science” with the programmatic title Integrating History and Philosophy of Science goes already in that direction (see also footnote 63).

  17. 17.

    Zilsel (2000).

  18. 18.

    Manninen and Stadler (2010).

  19. 19.

    For an overview on Mach: Haller and Stadler (1988) and Wolters (1987).

  20. 20.

    Mach (1909, pp. 3f.).

  21. 21.

    The essential writings of Mach are currently edited with introductions by different Mach scholars in the “Ernst Mach Studienausgabe” by the Berlin publisher xenomoi. (Editors: Friedrich Stadler, together with Michael Heidelberger, Dieter Hoffmann, Elisabeth Nemeth, Wolfgang Reiter, Jürgen Renn, Gereon Wolters).

  22. 22.

    A selection of Mach’s lectures, cited in: Mach (2011a, pp. XIII f.).

  23. 23.

    On Mach’s appointment see Mayerhöfer (1967).

  24. 24.

    See Helmholtz (1921/1998). Helmholtz (1821–1894) was professor for physiology in Königsberg, professor for anatomy and physiology in Bonn, professor for physiology in Heidelberg and finally professor for physics in Berlin, but contrary to Mach, he was not on a chair for philosophy.

  25. 25.

    On the reception of Mach: Stadler (1982).

  26. 26.

    Mach (2011a, English trans. 1976, pp. 235–236).

  27. 27.

    Reichenbach (1938). For the context from a contemporary point of view, see Stadler (2011).

  28. 28.

    Simon (1977). For a recent overview: Schickore and Steinle (2006). See also Wolters (1986).

  29. 29.

    Mach (2011b).

  30. 30.

    Boltzmann (1903).

  31. 31.

    Boltzmann (1905).

  32. 32.

    Boltzmann (1902).

  33. 33.

    On his life and work: Stöhr (1974).

  34. 34.

    Stadler and Wendel (2006a, b) and Engler et~al. (2008).

  35. 35.

    Moritz Schlick, “Vorrede” to: “Naturphilosophie”. Manuscript in the Schlick Papers Nr.8 (Wiener Kreis Archiv Haarlem, North Holland).

  36. 36.

    Feyerabend (1978, p. 202).

  37. 37.

    Feyerabend, “Machs Theorie der Forschung und ihre Beziehung zu Einstein”, in: Haller, Stadler, Ernst Mach (see footnote 20), pp. 461f.

  38. 38.

    Carnap (1968, p. VII).

  39. 39.

    Stadler (1997/2001).

  40. 40.

    The members of the Editorial Board and the Advisory Board reflect this transatlantic cooperation and convergence between logical empiricism and neo-pragmatism. One gets a similar picture from the Advisory Committee of the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science (Carnap et~al. (1938)).

  41. 41.

    Malisoff (1934, p. 1).

  42. 42.

    On the “cultural war on relativism” see Reisch (2005), especially the “Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion” 1940–1968 as an expression of a xenophobic mentality since the entrance of the United States into World War II.

  43. 43.

    For an overview, see Stadler (2010b, 2012b).

  44. 44.

    On this phase of slow intellectual reconstruction, see Stadler (2005, 2010a).

  45. 45.

    On the life and work of Pap: Keupink and Shieh (2006).

  46. 46.

    See Stadler (2012c).

  47. 47.

    See Schorner (2010).

  48. 48.

    Stadler and Fischer (2001).

  49. 49.

    On the LSE-conference 1965, see the Proceedings: Lakatos and Musgrave (1970).

  50. 50.

    On the history of HOPOS: www.hopos.org

  51. 51.

    HOPOS – The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 1(2011), Statement of Policy, Cover page III.

  52. 52.

    DLMPS und DHST websites: www.dlmps.org

  53. 53.

    Mission statement in www.icsu.org

  54. 54.

    Paulvon Ulsen, ``The Birth of DLMPS. IUHPS/DLMPS'', website: www.dlmps.org/history.html. Wilfrid Hodges, ``DLMPS – Tarski's vision and ours''. Opening address at the 14th Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Nancy, July 2011 (Hodges 2011).

  55. 55.

    www.epsa.ac.at

  56. 56.

    www.pse-esf.org

  57. 57.

    www.eshs.org

  58. 58.

    See the website of the latest and already forth conference in Athens: http://conferences.phs.uoa.gr/andhps/

  59. 59.

    Folder of the &HPS Conference in Athens 2012 (see footnote 57).

  60. 60.

    Howard (2011, p. 66).

  61. 61.

    Howard (2011, p. 67).

  62. 62.

    Mauskopf and Schmaltz (2012).

  63. 63.

    Mauskopf and Schmaltz (2012, introduction, pp. 1–10).

  64. 64.

    See Bloor (2007).

  65. 65.

    For an attempt to rehabilitate that view, see Lutz (2012). A similar exception are the books by Fritz Ringer, the most recent: Ringer (1997).

  66. 66.

    Ferrari (2012).

  67. 67.

    This question had been addressed in the historiography of modern science and the scientific revolutions; see Collins (1998).

  68. 68.

    Currently, HPS Curricula are developed which attempt to take the perspective of a “post-colonial HPS”, see C.K. Raju, HOPOS-List, February 1, 2011.

  69. 69.

    Potter (2006) and Grasswick (2011).

  70. 70.

    Fricker and Hornsby in Fricker (2000, p. 3).

  71. 71.

    Philosophy of Science 70 (2003), pp. 1ff.

  72. 72.

    See Wolters (2014).

References

  • Bloor, D. 2007. Epistemic grace. Antirelativism as theology in disguise. Common Knowledge 13: 2–3. doi:10.1215/0961754X-2007-007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boltzmann, L. 1902. Model. In Encyclopaedia Britannica, 10th ed. Reprinted in the 11th edition, vol. 10: 638–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boltzmann, L. 1903. Ein Antrittsvortrag über Naturphilosophie. in: L. Boltzmann (1905), pp. 338–334. Cited after the edition by Engelbert Broda, Braunschweig: Vieweg 1979, pp. 199 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boltzmann, L. 1905. Populäre Schriften, n. 18, Leipzig: Barth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnap, R. 1968. Logische Syntax der Sprache. Vienna: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carnap, R., C. Morris, and O. Neurath (eds.). 1938. International encyclopedia of unified science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, R. 1998. The sociology of philosophies. A global theory of intellectual change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engler, F.O., M. Iven, and H.-J. Wendel (eds.). 2008. Schlickiana. Berlin: Parerga.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari, M. 2012. ‘Wachstum oder Revolution’? Ernst Cassirer und die Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 35(2): 113–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. 1978. Science in a free society. London: New Left Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleck, L. 2011. In Denkstile und Tatsachen. Gesammelte Schriften und Zeugnisse, ed. S. Werner and C. Zwettel. Frankfurt a.M: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fricker, M. (ed.). 2000. The Cambridge companion to feminism in philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grasswick, H.E. (ed.). 2011. Feminist epistemology and philosophy of science. Power in knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haller, R., and F. Stadler (eds.). 1988. Ernst Mach – Leben und Werk. Vienna: HPT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmholtz, W. 1921. Schriften zur Erkenntnistheorie. Comments by M. Schlick and P. Hertz. New edition by E. Bonk, Vienna/New York: Springer, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, W. 2011. DLMPS – Tarski’s vision and ours. Opening address at the 14th Congress of Logic, Methodology and philosophy of science, Nancy, July 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, D. 2011. Philosophy of science and the history of science. In Continuum companion in the philosophy of science, ed. S. French and J. Saatsi, 55–71. London/New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyningen-Huene, P. 1991. Der Zusammenhang von Wissenschaftsphilosophie, Wissenschaftsgeschichte und Wissenschaftssoziologie in der Theorie Thomas Kuhns. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 22: 43–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keupink, A., and S. Shieh (eds.). 2006. The limits of logical empiricism. Selected papers of Arthur Pap. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T.S. 1962/1970. Structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Published in R. Carnap, C. Morris and O. Neurath, eds. Unity of science. International encyclopedia of unified science, vol. II, 2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T.S. 1976. The relations between the history and the philosophy of science. In The essential tension, 3–20. London/Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. 1971. History of science and its rational reconstructions. In PSA 1970, Boston studies in the philosophy of science VIII, ed. R.C. Buck and R.S. Cohen, 91–136. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I., and A. Musgrave (eds.). 1970. Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, L. 1978. Progress and its problems. Towards a theory of scientific growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, L. 1990. The history of science and the philosophy of science. In Companion to the history of modern science, ed. R.C. Olby, G.N. Cantor, J.R.R. Christie, and M.J.S. Hodge, 47–59. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lutz, S. 2012. On a Strawman in the philosophy of science. HOPOS. The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 2: 77–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mach, E. 1909. Die Geschichte und die Wurzel des Satzes von der Erhaltung der Arbeit. Leipzig: Barth. original ed.: Prag: Calve 1872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mach, E. 2011a. In Erkenntnis und Irrtum. Skizzen zur Psychologie der Forschung, ed. E. Nemeth and F. Stadler. Berlin: Xenomoi. English trans.: Mach, E. 1976. Knowledge and error – Sketches on the psychology of enquiry. Trans. T.J. McCormack and P. Fouldes. Dordrecht/Boston: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mach, M. 2011b. Über Gedankenexperimente. In Erkenntnis und Irrtum. Skizzen zur Psychologie der Forschung, ed. E. Nemeth and F. Stadler, 193–210. Berlin: Xenomoi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malisoff, W.M. 1934. What is philosophy of science? Philosophy of Science 1(1): 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manninen, J., and F. Stadler (eds.). 2010. The Vienna circle in the Nordic countries. Networks and transformations of logical empiricism. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauskopf, S., and T. Schmaltz (eds.). 2012. Integrating history and philosophy of science. Problems and prospects. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayerhöfer, J. 1967. Ernst Machs Berufung an die Wiener Universität. In Symposium aus Anlaß des 50.Todestages von Ernst Mach, Freiburg i. Br.: Ernst Mach Institut, 12–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, E., and N. Roudet (eds.). 2005. Paris – Wien. Enzyklopädien im Vergleich. Vienna/New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, E. 2006. Feminism and philosophy of science. An introduction. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach, H. 1938. Experience and prediction. An analysis of the foundation and structure of knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reisch, G. 2005. How the cold war transformed philosophy of science. To the icy slopes of logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ringer, F. 1997. Max Weber’s methodology. The unification of the cultural and social sciences. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schickore, J., and F. Steinle (eds.). 2006. Revisiting discovery and justification. Historical and philosophical perspective on the context distinction. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schorner, M. 2010. Comeback auf Umwegen. Die Rückkehr der Wissenschaftstheorie in Österreich. In Vertreibung, Transformation und Rūckkehr der Wissenschaftstheorie. Am Beispiel von Rudolf Carnap und Wolfgang Stegmūller, ed. F. Stadler, 189–252. Vienna/Munich: LIT Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H.A. 1977. Models of discovery and other topics in the methods of sciences. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, F. 1982. Vom Positivismus zur “Wissenschaftlichen Weltauffassung”. Vienna/Munich: Löcker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, F. 1997/2001. Studien zum Wiener Kreis. Ursprung, Entwicklung und Wirkung des Logischen Empirismus im Kontext. Frankfurt a.M: Suhrkamp. English edition: Vienna/New York: Springer 2001. Spanish edition: Mexico City/Santiago de Chile: Fondo de Cultura Economica 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, F. 2004. Induction and deduction in the philosophy of science: A critical account since the methodenstreit. In Induction and deduction in the science, ed. F. Stadler, 1–16. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, F. 2005. Philosophie – Zwischen ‘Anschluss’ und Ausschluss, Restauration und Innovation. In Zukunft mit Altlasten. Die Universität Wien 1945 bis 1955, ed. M. Grandner, G. Heiss, and O. Rathkolb, 121–136. Innsbruck: Studienverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, F. (ed.). 2010a. Vertreibung, Transformation und Rückkehr der Wissenschaftstheorie. Am Beispiel von Rudolf Carnap und Wolfgang Stegmüller. Vienna/Munich: LIT Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, F. 2010b. History and philosophy of science. From Wissenschaftslogik (logic of science) to philosophy of science: Europe and America, 1930–1960. In Vertreibung, Transformation und Rūckkehr der Wissenschaftstheorie. Am Beispiel von Rudolf Carnap und Wolfgang Stegmūller, ed. F. Stadler, 9–84. Vienna/Munich: LIT Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, F. 2011. The road to ‘experience and prediction’ from within: Hans Reichenbach’s scientific correspondence from Berlin to Istanbul. Synthese 181: 137–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, F. 2012a. History and philosophy of science. Zwischen Deskription und Konstruktion. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 35: 217–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, F. 2012b. The Vienna Circle: Moritz Schlick, Otto Neurath and Rudolf Carnap. In Philosophy of science: Key thinkers, ed. J.R. Brown, 53–82. London/New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, F. 2012c. Wissenschaftstheorie in Österreich seit den 1990er Jahren im Internationalen Vergleich – Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 43(1): 137–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, F., and K. Fischer (eds.). 2001. Paul Feyerabend – Ein Philosoph aus Wien. Vienna/New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, F., and H.J. Wendel (eds.). 2006a. Moritz Schlick Gesamtausgabe (MSGA). Vienna/New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, F., and H.J. Wendel (eds.). 2006b. Schlick Studien. Vienna/New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stöhr, A. 1974. In Philosophische Konstruktionen und Reflexionen, ed. F. Austeda. Vienna: Deuticke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, G. 1986. Topik der Forschung. Zur wissenschaftlichen Funktion der Heuristik bei Ernst Mach. In Technische Rationalität und rationale Heuristik, eds. C. Burrichter, R. Inhetveen and R. Kütter, 123–154. Paderborn-München-Wien-Zürich: Schöningh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, G. 1987. Mach I, Mach II, Einstein und die Relativitätstheorie. Eine Fälschung und ihre Folgen. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, G. 2014. Globalized parochialism, or: Is there a European philosophy of science? In Philosophy of science in Europe – European philosophy of science and the Viennese Heritage, ed. M.C. Galavotti, E. Nemeth, and F. Stadler. Vienna/New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zilsel, E. 2000. The social origins of modern science. Foreword by J. Needham. Introduction by D. Raven and W. Krohn, ed. D. Raven and R.S. Cohen. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute Vienna Circle, University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 2, Hof 1.13, Vienna, A-1090, Austria

    Friedrich Stadler

Authors
  1. Friedrich Stadler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Friedrich Stadler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy and Commmunication, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Maria Carla Galavotti

  2. Institute for History and Foundations of Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Dennis Dieks

  3. Faculty of Humanities, University of A Coruña, Ferrol, Spain

    Wenceslao J. Gonzalez

  4. Centre for Mathematical Philosophy, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Stephan Hartmann

  5. School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

    Thomas Uebel

  6. Department of Philosophy, University of Geneva, Geneva 4, Switzerland

    Marcel Weber

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Stadler, F. (2014). History and Philosophy of Science: Between Description and Construction. In: Galavotti, M., Dieks, D., Gonzalez, W., Hartmann, S., Uebel, T., Weber, M. (eds) New Directions in the Philosophy of Science. The Philosophy of Science in a European Perspective, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04382-1_52

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation