Historiography of science

Lore & Background

The earliest histories of science were written by scientists largely as celebrations of scientific progress. Scholars in the 19th and early 20th century frequently treated the history and philosophy of science as a single scholarly undertaking but the fields began to diverge under the influence of logical positivism, which demarcated scientific justification as the proper concern of philosophy, leaving scientific discovery to the historians. The increasing professionalization of science history in the 20th century and the entry of sociologists into the field caused friction with scientists and 'practitioner' historians (practicing or retired scientists writing about their own fields). The divide has often centered on a disagreement over whether the history of science should be an accounting of scientific progress or a critical analysis of science as a cultural activity. That disagreement reached a climax during the 'science wars' of the 1990s when prominent scientists criticized sociologists and some historians for ignoring the objective reality of nature in favor of political explanations when writing science history.

Reader's Guide

The historiography of science matters because it shapes how we understand the development of scientific knowledge and the role of science in culture. The field's central tension—between internalist narratives of rational progress and externalist analyses of social context—reflects broader debates about objectivity, authority, and the nature of scientific practice. The science wars of the 1990s brought these issues to public attention, especially through the Sokal hoax, which transformed a specialized academic debate into a broader public controversy. Since the history of science requires a difficult intellectual 'bilingualism' that straddles science and history, the polarization of the surrounding culture between the sciences and the humanities remains an inherent challenge. Some science historians have acknowledged the reality of the divide but also argued that it can be bridged by scholars trained as both scientists and historians. The field continues to grapple with questions about whether to celebrate scientific progress or critically analyze science as a cultural activity.

Did You Know?

• The science wars of the 1990s were escalated by the book Higher Superstition by biologist Paul R. Gross and mathematician Norman Levitt.
• The term 'science wars' was coined for a special 1996 issue of Social Text.
• The Sokal hoax generated unusually wide public interest in the science wars.

Enlightenment Origins and the Progress Narrative

The earliest written accounts of science's past emerged not from professional historians but from Enlightenment-era scientists themselves. Figures such as Jean-Étienne Montucla, Jean Le Rond d'Alembert, and Joseph Priestley composed these early histories in the 18th century, viewing them primarily as pedagogical instruments that celebrated the advancement of human reason. Their narratives tended to present science as a linear, progressive march culminating in the superior knowledge of their own era. This celebratory tone persisted into the 19th century through popular biographies of scientists, which helped cement Newton's image as both a scientific genius and a British national hero. Scientist-historian John William Draper further shaped public understanding by advancing a conflict thesis framing religion and science as eternal adversaries. By the mid-20th century, however, specialized historians of science turned critical of these earlier works, accusing practitioner-historians of neglecting primary sources, misreading the ones they did consult, ignoring the social context surrounding scientific work, and producing hagiographic tales of heroic scientists battling myopic or prejudiced opponents.

The Philosophical-Scientific Divergence

For much of the 19th century, scholars treated the history of science and its philosophy as a unified scholarly enterprise. Thinkers like Auguste Comte and Ernst Mach, both associated with positivism, saw the study of what science had been and what its methods ought to be as productively intertwined. Comte and Mach also influenced broader historical methodology through historical positivism, which urged historians to let documentary sources speak for themselves and led to the development of rigorous source-criticism techniques aimed at stripping away bias. The roots of philosophy of science as a distinct inquiry stretch back further still, to Francis Bacon's Novum Organum, Descartes' Discourse on Method, Newton's Principia, and Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. However, the landscape shifted dramatically under the influence of logical positivism in the early 20th century. This philosophical movement drew a sharp boundary: scientific justification became the proper domain of philosophy, while the narrative of scientific discovery was left to historians. This demarcation effectively split what had been a single scholarly undertaking into two separate disciplines, a division that continues to shape how the past of science is studied and debated.

The Science Wars and the Internalist-Externalist Clash

A fundamental tension in the historiography of science concerns whether the discipline should narrate the rational evolution of ideas or critically examine science as a cultural activity. Most scientist-historians favored an internalist approach, tracing logical progressions of scientific thought. A notable exception was Soviet physicist Boris Hessen, who argued that even Newton's physics was a direct product of the economic demands of 17th-century British capitalism. This externalist perspective gained momentum as sociologists entered the field over subsequent decades. The disagreement reached a dramatic climax in the 1990s, a period later dubbed the science wars. Prominent scientists and philosophers launched fierce attacks on sociologists and externalist historians, accusing them of dismissing the objective reality of nature in favor of political explanations. Biologist Paul R. Gross and mathematician Norman Levitt escalated the conflict with their book Higher Superstition. The term itself was coined for a 1996 special issue of Social Text, a Duke University Press journal of postmodern critical theory. The Sokal hoax further transformed this specialized academic dispute into a widely publicized cultural controversy.

Professionalization and the Bilingualism Challenge

The 20th century witnessed the emergence of history of science as an independent, professionalized field, a development that generated significant friction with practicing and retired scientists who wrote about their own disciplines. The entry of sociologists into the field deepened these tensions, as the new professional historians often adopted critical, culturally situated approaches that clashed with the progress-narrative traditions favored by scientist-authors. At the heart of much of this friction lay a fundamental philosophical disagreement: should the history of science function as an accounting of cumulative progress, or as a critical analysis of science as a cultural and social activity? Beyond these specific disputes, the field faces a structural challenge rooted in the broader 20th-century polarization between the sciences and the humanities. Because the history of science demands a difficult intellectual bilingualism—fluent simultaneously in scientific content and historical method—this cultural divide remains an inherent and ongoing obstacle. Some science historians have acknowledged the reality of this split while arguing it can be bridged by scholars who receive training in both scientific and historical disciplines, though the challenge persists as a defining feature of the field.

Gallery