Abstract
In the present work, we aim to analyze Lorraine Daston’s critiques of the historiographical value of Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: we will defend its relevance from the attacks of “the history of contingencies”. Daston’s proposal asserts that the Kuhnian historiographical programme of professionalizing the history of science (moving it towards history departments to the detriment of science departments) has been fulfilled but has resulted in the abandonment of the Hegelian spirit from Kuhn’s historiography, i.e. the search for “a structure” of the history of science has been abandoned. We will analyze and incorporate the recent responses from K. Brad Wray and Pablo Melogno. Finally, through a thorough analysis of the relationships between philosophy and the history of science, particularly in Kuhn’s work, we will propose a defense of the systematic and explicit use of metatheoretical structures for historiographical endeavors.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: The Annals of the University of Bucharest, Philosophy Series
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
