Abstract
Among the many groups of scholars whose work now illuminates science, technology and medicine (STM), historians, it seems to me, have a key responsibility not just to elucidate change but to establish and explain variety. One of the big pictures we need is a model of the varieties of STM over time; one which does not presume the timeless existence of disciplines, or the distinctions between science, technology and medicine; a model which is both synchronic and diachronic, and both cognitive and social. To that end, this brief paper presents a historical typology of STM from about 1700 to the present by focusing on four ‘ideal’ socio-cognitive types – four knowledge structures which correspond to four sets of social relations. To some extent these are period specific, but they do not have to be – hence, one may hope, the flexibility and usefulness of the model.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
History and Philosophy of Science,History
Reference166 articles.
1. Smith C. , ‘Energy’ in Companion, op. cit. (9), 326–41, especially 328.
2. ‘Museological science? The place of the analytical/comparative in nineteenth-century science, technology and medicine’, History of Science, forthcoming, 1994
3. Fox R. , ‘Laplacian physics’, in Companion, op. cit. (9), 264–77.
Cited by
71 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献