Saturday, February 25, 2012
In this post I continue to wonder about how to practice the history of science. In particular, I reflect on what might constituted historical expertise, which distinguishes historians from non-historians.
Posted by Darin Hayton on 02/25 at 11:45 PM
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Lynn Nyhart’s recent column in the HSS Newsletter calling for a rethinking of the history of science profession echoes comments and suggestions made by historians. We need to take her seriously if we are going to extend the profession beyond the walls of the academy.
Posted by Darin Hayton on 02/26 at 11:27 PM
Friday, March 30, 2012
In my efforts to think more about what makes history and history of science distinct, I reread R. G. Collingwood’s The Idea of History. I appreciate that it is old and perhaps out of fashion, but I think it offers some useful suggestions about historical practice.
Posted by Darin Hayton on 03/30 at 10:24 AM
(1) Comments •
Monday, April 30, 2012
Science writers and scientists frequently discuss whether or not science writers should read the scientific papers on which their stories are based. What would happen if we asked similar questions of science writers and scientists who relied on historical sources?
Posted by Darin Hayton on 04/30 at 11:40 PM
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
A scientist looks to the historical record for evidence of a supernova that can account for a spike in carbon-14 levels.
Posted by Darin Hayton on 06/27 at 11:26 PM
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Another physician takes a crack at guessing what caused King Tut’s death and in the process rejects basic historical methodologies and denies historical expertise.
Posted by Darin Hayton on 09/11 at 10:43 AM
Page 1 of 1