Osler Flashcards
What does Osler mean when she writes that the history of science tends to be ‘whiggish’ and why do many historians consider this ‘whiggism’ a problem?
Osler is referring to the tendency of the history of science to be “Whiggish,” which means that it presents the history of science as the unfolding of ideas by the force of their own, internal logic. This approach assumes that the development of scientific ideas is inevitable and progresses in a linear, progressive manner. Many historians consider this “Whiggism” a problem because it can lead to an incomplete explanation of critical developments in the history of science. It can also overlook the influence of social, political, and cultural factors on the development of scientific ideas, as well as the diverse interests and preoccupations of historical actors. By being “Whiggish,” the history of science may fail to fully interrogate the assumptions guiding historical actors and may not provide a comprehensive understanding of the complexities of intellectual change.
Why does Osler think that the concept of ‘appropriation’ offers a solution to this problem?
Osler believes that the concept of “appropriation” offers a solution to the problem of understanding the development of ideas in intellectual history because it emphasizes the agency of historical actors in using and adapting ideas from existing traditions to solve specific problems in their own contexts. By focusing on the appropriation of ideas, historians can account for the development of ideas by considering the particular social, ideological, and intellectual contexts in which they were used. This approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of the historical actors’ motivations and concerns, rather than imposing preconceived notions or categories onto their ideas. Additionally, the concept of appropriation highlights the importance of the contexts in which ideas are used and the detailed histories of particular concepts within those contexts, ultimately leading to a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of intellectual history.
How do Westfall’s and Dobbs’s interpretation of Newton’s alchemical work differ? Why is this difference illustrative, according to Osler, for the development of the historiography about the scientific revolution?
Westfall and Dobbs have different interpretations of Newton’s alchemical work. Westfall’s interpretation focuses on understanding Newton’s alchemical work within the context of his “scientific” work, emphasizing the broader vistas it opened for him and the additional categories it provided to supplement and complete the narrow mechanistic ones. Westfall argues that Newton’s alchemical pursuits were significant in shaping his intellectual odyssey and contributed to his enduring fame. On the other hand, Dobbs’s interpretation emphasizes the importance of understanding Newton’s alchemical pursuits in the context of his theological quest. Dobbs argues that Newton understood his life’s work, including his devotion to alchemy, as a study of the modes of divine activity in the world, and his theological views influenced his scientific work.
According to Osler, this difference in interpretation is illustrative for the development of the historiography about the scientific revolution because it highlights the need to reconsider the received opinions about the nature of the Scientific Revolution. The differing interpretations of Newton’s alchemical work demonstrate the importance of understanding historical figures and their work within their own preoccupations and historical context, rather than imposing modern assumptions and perspectives onto them. This challenges the traditional historiography of the Scientific Revolution and calls for a reevaluation of the canon of historical figures and disciplines that have been traditionally included in the standard account. It also underscores the significance of considering the broader intellectual currents and social relations of early modern science in shaping the understanding of the Scientific Revolution.
