What’s in It for the Historian of Science? Reflections on the Value of Philosophy of Science for History of Science

References

• Andersen, H., P. Barker, and X. Chen. 2006. The Cognitive Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Arabatzis, T. 1992. “The Discovery of the Zeeman Effect: A Case Study of the Interplay between Theory and Experiment.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 23: 365–388. doi: 10.1016/0039-3681(92)90001-M
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arabatzis, T. 1994. “Rational Versus Sociological Reductionism: Imre Lakatos and the Edinburgh School.” In Trends in the Historiography of Science, edited by K. Gavroglu, J. Christianidis, and E. Nicolaidis, 177–192. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Arabatzis, T. 1996. “Rethinking the ‘Discovery’ of the Electron.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 27: 405–435. doi: 10.1016/S1355-2198(96)00019-6
   Google Scholar
• Arabatzis, T. 2005. “Experiment.” In New Dictionary of the History of Ideas, edited by M. Horowitz, vol. 2, 765–769. Detroit, MI: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Arabatzis, T. 2006a. Representing Electrons: A Biographical Approach to Theoretical Entities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Arabatzis, T. 2006b. “On the Inextricability of the Context of Discovery and the Context of Justification.” In Revisiting Discovery and Justification: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction, edited by J. Schickore and F. Steinle, 215–230. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Arabatzis, T. 2012. “Experimentation and the Meaning of Scientific Concepts.” In Scientific Concepts and Investigative Practice, edited by U. Feest and F. Steinle, 149–166. Berlin: De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Arabatzis, T. 2014. “Experiment.” In The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Science, edited by M. Curd and S. Psillos, 2nd ed., 191–202. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Arabatzis, T. 2016. “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and History and Philosophy of Science in Historical Perspective.” In Shifting Paradigms: Thomas S. Kuhn and the History of Science, edited by A. Blum, K. Gavroglu, C. Joas, and J. Renn, 191–201. Berlin: Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte.
   Google Scholar
• Arabatzis, T., and K. Gavroglu. 2016. “From Discrepancy to Discovery: How Argon Became an Element.” In The Philosophy of Historical Case Studies, edited by T. Sauer and R. Scholl, 203–222. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Araujo,  S. F. 2016. Wundt and the Philosophical Foundations of Psychology: A Reappraisal. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Araujo, S. F. 2017. “Toward a Philosophical History of Psychology: An Alternative Path for the Future.” Theory and Psychology 27: 87–107. doi: 10.1177/0959354316656062
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchwald,  J. Z. 1992. “Kinds and the Wave Theory of Light.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 23: 39–74. doi: 10.1016/0039-3681(92)90026-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burian, R. M. 2001. “The Dilemma of Case Studies Resolved: The Virtues of Using Case Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science.” Perspectives on Science 9: 383–404. doi: 10.1162/106361401760375794
   Google Scholar
• Caneva, K. L. 2005. “‘Discovery’ as a Site for the Collective Construction of Scientific Knowledge.” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 35: 175–291. doi: 10.1525/hsps.2005.35.2.175
   Google Scholar
• Chang, H. 2004. Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chang, H. 2011. “Beyond Case-studies: History as Philosophy.” In Integrating History and Philosophy of Science: Problems and Prospects, edited by S. Mauskopf and T. Schmaltz, 109–124. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Chang, H. 2012a. Is Water H₂O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Chang, H. 2012b. “Incommensurability: Revisiting the Chemical Revolution.” In Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Revisited, edited by V. Kindi and T. Arabatzis, 153–176. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Darrigol, O. 2000. Electrodynamics from Ampère to Einstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dear, P. 2005. “What Is the History of Science the History of?” Isis 96: 390–406. doi: 10.1086/447747
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dick, S. J. 2013. Discovery and Classification in Astronomy: Controversy and Consensus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Donovan, A., L. Laudan, and R. Laudan. 1988. Scrutinizing Science: Empirical Studies of Scientific Change. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Duhem, P. 1954. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Translated by P. P. Wiener. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forman, P. 1991. “Independence, Not Transcendence, for the Historian of Science.” Isis 82: 71–86. doi: 10.1086/355638
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franklin, A. 1986. The Neglect of Experiment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Franklin, A. 1989. “The Epistemology of Experiment.” In The Uses of Experiment: Studies in the Natural Sciences, edited by D. Gooding, T. Pinch, and S. Schaffer, 437–460. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frercks, J., H. Weber, and G. Wiesenfeldt. 2009. “Reception and Discovery: The Nature of Johann Wilhelm Ritter’s Invisible Rays.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40: 143–156. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2009.03.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, M. 2001. Dynamics of Reason. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Galison, P. 1987. How Experiments End. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Galison, P. 1997. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gooding, D. 1990. Experiment and the Making of Meaning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Hacking, I. 1983. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hanson, N. R. 1962. “The Irrelevance of History of Science to Philosophy of Science.” Journal of Philosophy 59: 574–586. doi: 10.2307/2023279
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hull, D. L. 1975. “Central Subjects and Historical Narratives.” History and Theory 14: 253–274. doi: 10.2307/2504863
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitcher, P. 1993. The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. 1957. The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. 1962. “Historical Structure of Scientific Discovery.” Science 136: 760–764. doi: 10.1126/science.136.3518.760
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. 1977a. “The Relations between the History and the Philosophy of Science.” In T. S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, 3–20. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. 1977b. “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice.” In T. S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, 320–339. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. 1980. “The Halt and the Blind: Philosophy and History of Science.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 31: 181–192. doi: 10.1093/bjps/31.2.181
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuukkanen, J.-M. 2008. “Making Sense of Conceptual Change.” History and Theory 47: 351–372. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2303.2008.00459.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakatos, I. 1976. “History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions.” In Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences: The Critical Background to Modern Science, 1800–1905, edited by C. Howson, 1–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakatos,  I. 1980. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1, edited by J. Worrall and  G. Currie, 8–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laudan, L. 1980. “Why Was the Logic of Discovery Abandoned?” In Scientific Discovery, Logic, and Rationality, edited by T. Nickles, 173–183. Dordrecht: Reidel.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, A. I. 1985. Frontiers of Physics 1900–1911: Selected Essays. Boston, MA: Birkhäuser.
   Google Scholar
• Nersessian, N. J. 2008. Creating Scientific Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nickles, T., ed. 1980. Scientific Discovery: Case Studies. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
   Google Scholar
• Pickering, A. 1984. Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pitt, J. C. 2001. “The Dilemma of Case Studies: Toward a Heraclitian Philosophy of Science.” Perspectives on Science 9: 373–382. doi: 10.1162/106361401760375785
   Google Scholar
• Sauer, T., and R. Scholl, eds. 2016. The Philosophy of Historical Case Studies. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Schickore, J. 2011. “More thoughts on HPS: Another 20 Years Later.” Perspectives on Science 19: 453–481. doi: 10.1162/POSC_a_00049
   Google Scholar
• Schickore, J. 2017. About Method: Experimenters, Snake Venom, and the History of Writing Scientifically. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scholl, R., and T. Räz. 2016. “Towards a Methodology for Integrated History and Philosophy of Science.” In The Philosophy of Historical Case Studies, edited by T. Sauer and R. Scholl, 69–91. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Skinner, Q. 1969. “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas.” History and Theory 8: 3–53. doi: 10.2307/2504188
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinle, F. 2016. Exploratory Experiments: Ampère, Faraday, and the Origins of Electrodynamics. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Topper, D. R. 2007. Quirky Sides of Scientists: True Tales of Ingenuity and Error from Physics and Astronomy. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Zammito, J. H. 2004. A Nice Derangement of Epistemes: Post-positivism in the Study of Science from Quine to Latour. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar