History of Science and Historical Epistemology
Exploring the historicity of knowledge requires an understanding of possibilities and builds on the assumption that things could have been different. Historical research questions conditions and contingencies in search of alternatives, branching off in other directions, opening different futures. Only at first glance does the history of science devote itself solely to the past.
Like other disciplines also history of science passes with its programs and projects through trends and tendencies. Insofar as history of science aspires to be more than a kuhnian normal science, it has to reflect upon such conjunctures. As historical epistemology it historizises together with the genesis of specialized knowledge also the rules for its recognition. Herein lies the explosive power of a radical historicization of scientific practices.
In times of quantitative output measures and the evaluation of research by impact factors in terms of historical reflection and critical analysis of scientific developments must rely on epistemic values and sociopolitical models of usability, if it does not want to fall prey to the finalization of science with regard to its marketability. History of science strives to uncover the conditional structures in the understanding of concrete problem contexts and contributes thereby to current fields of action. Aftern a rapid succession of so-called 'turns' in science and technology studies at the end of the 20th century and a radical historicization of central concepts such as experiment or objectivity, history of science included a new groups of actors and spaces of knowledge. Science itself came under criticism and the history of science turned into history of knowledge. Today history of science struggles with the post-colonial criticism on Western orders of knowledge.
One continuing feature in this dynamic development is that history of science reflects the position of the observer in the field in ever changing ways. Such an endeavor has however a clear historical starting point in Ludwik Fleck’s Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. This book emerged in Lviv’s multilingual intellectual milieu during the interwar period. The book’s detour via the US inspired Thomas Kuhn to his concept of paradigm shift and this led to Fleck’s rediscovery back in Europe.
As an academic 'after-thought', history of science appears as mere luxury in the economy of society and the university. It historicizes all truths of the various disciplines and competes solely with philosophy of science for the rigor of criticism. But only philosophical criticism and historical contextualization promise to protect us from getting overwhelmed by the next wave of scientific, technical or social innovations.
In addition, not only history of science is secondary, but science in general, as product of the questioning of reality. Already for this reason, history of science must not be sure of its own cause if it is not to lose sight of it. It requires a creativity based on a profound skepticism regarding everything that is taken for granted, as Hans Blumenberg had already formulated: "Thoughtfulness means that nothing remains as obvious as it seems.“