Abstract
The author argues that the pragmatically oriented historiography of science that recently has been so strongly recommended has fallen into the mistake of focusing on scientists’ circumstantial attempts to fix beliefs without discussing the scientific importance of the beliefs in the first place. This mistake has led historians of science to engage in pointless exercises, made them mute about crucial aspects of the development of science, and, above all, prevented them from avoiding, in a satisfactory way, the ghost of “triumphalism.” On the other hand, so-called traditional historiography of science is not vulnerable to any of these charges.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.