On the Value of Collective Work and Studying Practices: An Interview

Abstract

A conversation with historian of science Lorraine Daston covers the current state of the discipline and Dr. Daston’s own projects. She argues that a history of science is indispensable for understanding contemporary science. She believes that the history of science has the potential to be liberating. By studying the historical variability of science, the discipline shows how science has become what it is — with certain subjects, standards and methods — and points to alternative ways for it to develop. The conversation also turns to whether “big pictures” of the development of science are possible. Although the discipline is trending toward localization with a focus on concrete material practices, historicism, and avoiding generalizations, those big pictures are still possible through collective research projects. Daston cites the efforts of the Working Group at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin as one example. The question of the relation between the history of science and philosophy is also discussed. Daston briefly outlines the status of the current interactions between these disciplines and singles out Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Bachelard, Canguilhem, Foucault, and Hadot as some of the key, at least on the European tradition. Speaking about the difference between histories of the natural sciences and the humanities, she suggests that the more interesting optics in their study may be practice-oriented rather than disciplinary. An example of research built around particular practices is her joint research project with Peter Galison on objectivity as a history of the practices for creating and reading scientific images. Daston briefly describes the history and features of their collaboration. In conclusion, she shares her immediate research plans.