Abstract
This paper aims to reconstruct some steps of the emergence and consolidation of the so-called French style in the history of sciences, from the perspective of Georges Canguilhem, one of its main exponents. It begins with a brief characterization of this style, then seeks the moments in Canguilhem’s work in which he defines the more significant contributions of certain authors to the development of this style. First, Fontenelle’s critique of Cartesian thought; after Comte and Claude Bernard, passing by Montpellier School and Paris School of Medicine, until finally reaching the decisive contribution of Bachelard.
Highlights
Let it be permitted to see, in such a philosophical conception of the history of sciences, the source of what was and what should remain, in our view, the originality of French style in the history of sciences
It is hoped that this critical history can serve as an index of rationality itself, even if it is to criticize its criteria and scientific bases, as in the case of Foucault’s archeo-genealogy.2. Another aspect that singularizes the French style is that, it is developed according to specific regionalities, sciences always appear as a privileged place for the development of reason itself
It is interesting to note that Canguilhem did not start his work as a historian of sciences. He became a historian of sciences under very specific conditions, which I tried to reconstruct, showing how some of the philosophical and epistemological problems that characterize this author’s work arose. Either from his own research, either from external happenings: political events, epistemological revolutions in the life sciences that Canguilhem started to practice under specific conditions, or new philosophical advances brought by younger thinkers (e.g., Foucault, Althusser, Dagognet or Delaporte)
Summary
Let it be permitted to see, in such a philosophical conception of the history of sciences, the source of what was and what should remain, in our view, the originality of French style in the history of sciences. This inevitably raises the problem of the objectivity of scientific knowledge, which can only be reconstructed reflexively or critically This reflection will end up forcing the attribution of a certain value to the knowledge production process, according to the current perspective referred to the science that this scholar is practicing. It is hoped that this critical history can serve as an index of rationality itself, even if it is to criticize its criteria and scientific bases, as in the case of Foucault’s archeo-genealogy.2 Another aspect that singularizes the French style is that, it is developed according to specific regionalities (e.g., set theory in mathematics, Einsteinian physics or quantum chemistry, cell theory or embryology), sciences always appear as a privileged place for the development of reason itself. Either from his own research, either from external happenings: political events, epistemological revolutions in the life sciences that Canguilhem started to practice under specific conditions (as the discovery of DNA hereditary structure, in 1953, who renewed the studies in genetics), or new philosophical advances brought by younger thinkers (e.g., Foucault, Althusser, Dagognet or Delaporte)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 call
