Abstract

My theses are synopsized in my title, so let me begin by expanding on it, starting with the subtitle. The main point of the paper is to argue for the indispensability of the history of science to the philosophy of science, yet by the end I hope to make clear how the converse holds as well. Because both history and philosophy of science involve diverse pursuits, my claim of their mutual indispensability applies only insofar as each of them concerns itself with the nature and scope of the “knowledge” achieved in modern science (The shudder quotes serve not to foreclose from the outset on those who question whether the word is strictly applicable to it). Although adopting Kant’s phrasing exaggerates the situation, in some respects, I am going to argue, philosophy of science without history of science is empty, and history of science without philosophy of science is blind. My hope for some time has been a rapprochement between the two. The crucial step, nevertheless, is for philosophers of science to recognize a need for a certain sort of history of science. The principal task of the paper will be to spell out just what sort that is.