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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inStudies in history and philosophy of science. Part A Vol. 80; pp. 37 - 46
Main Authors Bolinska, Agnes, Martin, Joseph D.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England Elsevier Ltd 01.04.2020
Elsevier Science Ltd
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN0039-3681
1879-2510
1879-2510
DOI10.1016/j.shpsa.2019.05.003

Cover

More Information
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