Negotiating history: Contingency, canonicity, and case studies
Objections to the use of historical case studies for philosophical ends fall into two categories. Methodological objections claim that historical accounts and their uses by philosophers are subject to various biases. We argue that these challenges are not special; they also apply to other epistemic...
        Saved in:
      
    
          | Published in | Studies in history and philosophy of science. Part A Vol. 80; pp. 37 - 46 | 
|---|---|
| Main Authors | , | 
| Format | Journal Article | 
| Language | English | 
| Published | 
        England
          Elsevier Ltd
    
        01.04.2020
     Elsevier Science Ltd  | 
| Subjects | |
| Online Access | Get full text | 
| ISSN | 0039-3681 1879-2510 1879-2510  | 
| DOI | 10.1016/j.shpsa.2019.05.003 | 
Cover
| Summary: | Objections to the use of historical case studies for philosophical ends fall into two categories. Methodological objections claim that historical accounts and their uses by philosophers are subject to various biases. We argue that these challenges are not special; they also apply to other epistemic practices. Metaphysical objections, on the other hand, claim that historical case studies are intrinsically unsuited to serve as evidence for philosophical claims, even when carefully constructed and used, and so constitute a distinct class of challenge. We show that attention to what makes for a canonical case can address these problems. A case study is canonical with respect to a particular philosophical aim when the features relevant to that aim provide a reasonably complete causal account of the results of the historical process under investigation. We show how to establish canonicity by evaluating relevant contingencies using two prominent examples from the history of science: Eddington’s confirmation of Einstein’s theory of general relativity using his data from the 1919 eclipse and Watson and Crick’s determination of the structure of DNA.
•Critiques of historical case studies used as evidence for philosophical claims are either epistemological or metaphysical.•Critiques of epistemological nature do not pose unique challenges for philosophers.•Critiques of metaphysical nature pose unique challenges that attention to the nature of historical contingency can address.•Attention to the nature of historical contingency can establish the canonicity of a case study. | 
|---|---|
| Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23  | 
| ISSN: | 0039-3681 1879-2510 1879-2510  | 
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.shpsa.2019.05.003 |