Access count of this item: 631

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
NJP_10_4.pdf3.14 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Title: ウィッグ史観は許容不可能か
Other Titles: Is Whig history inadnlissible?
Authors: 伊勢田, 哲治  kyouindb  KAKEN_id  orcid (unconfirmed)
Author's alias: ISEDA, Tetsuji
Issue Date: 2013
Publisher: 名古屋大学人間情報学研究科情報創造論講座
Journal title: Nagoya Journal of Philosophy
Volume: 10
Start page: 4
End page: 24
Abstract: This paper surveys the discussions on a Whig historiography in history of science, and proposed a more contextualized treatment of the issue. Since the mid-60s. a Whig historiography. i.e. reconstructing the history as a progress toward the present, has been accused as a wrong way of writing history. However, subsequent discussions of the issue, especially by David Hull and Stephen Brush, tend to allow a certain amount of presentism, i.e. writing history from the point of view of the present. What is needed is a clarification of various different types of prcsentism, and I propose four of them (perspective, negative, positive and evaluative). Some authors also suggest that Whig historiography is OK for historical writings by scientists themselves. Even though such context sensitivity is reasonable, the transcontextuality of written works makes it hard to pigeonhole various contexts if the case of history-of-science writings.
Related Link:
Appears in Collections:Journal Articles

Show full item record

Export to RefWorks

Export Format: 

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.