THE EDGE OF SUBJECTIVITY: AN INTRODUCTION TO

SYNTHETIC RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES IN THE HISTORY

OF SCIENCE.
TOBIAS BOWMAN

Traditional perspectives on Synthetic research.

A synthetic study of history, be that the History of Science, or of Religion, or

of Philately or of almost anything is generally what would be thought of as
the stereotypical, perhaps traditional way of doing history, even by many
historians, who sometimes long for the syntheses of the past.

Traditional

synthetic studies usually exist as very large, or far reaching bodies of work, in
the case of the History of Science, they examine scientific developments
across significant measures of time and space. Usually this variety and scope
is made possible by unifying scientific discoveries (Often regarded in a
highly present-centred manner2) under a central, or at least recursive,
philosophy (be that positivism, anti-postivism, rationalism, Marxism or any
other philosophical framework which could be used to depict science as
progress towards a specific focus3).

In this way, synthetic histories of

1 J. R. R. Christie, Aurora, Nemesis and Clio, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26,
4 (1993), pp. 391-405

2 A. Wilson and T. G. Ashplant, Present-Centred History and the Problem of Historical

Knowledge, The Historical Journal, 31, 2 (1988) pp. 253-74

3 A. Cunningham and P. Williams, De-Centring the 'Big Picture': "The Origins of Modern
Science" and the Modern Origins of Science, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26,
4 (1993), pp. 407-32; see also J. R. R. Christie, Aurora, Nemesis and Clio, The British Journal
for the History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp. 391-405

4 A. Cunningham and P. Williams, De-Centring the 'Big Picture': "The Origins of Modern
Science" and the Modern Origins of Science, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26,
4 (1993), pp. 407-32

science could do what no other kind of research could accomplish, they

produced, as far as their author was concerned, 5 a History of Science. Whilst
it is true that some studies today can claim to be in some ways synthetic
(such as the Cambridge History of Science 6), by combining multiple
perspectives and avenues of enquiry into a single work, few could claim to
provide an homogenous overview of the History of what we consider today
Science, let alone the multitude of past sciences.
The fate of traditional synthetic research
Today, overviews of the history of science bearing the breadth of traditional
synthetic works such as Butterfields The Origins of Modern Science or
Gillespies The Edge of Objectivity are rare in the extreme. 7 This is due in
part to the broadening of the availablility of science to academic enquiry
from a wide variety of fields; physicists such as Kuhn, philosophers like
Foucault, historians, sociologists, theologians, the list goes on. Science
became increasingly scrutinised from a wide variety of perspectives, which in
turn broadened contemporary definitions of science (The work of Thomas
Khun and Michel Foucault in particular was in the 1960s), this broadening of
science made it harder and harder to viably unify science within one
theoretical or philosophical framework.

As a result, the production of

synthetic studies in the History of Science dwindled, as the discipline

diversified and dispersed into examining the histories of specific periods,
5 J. R. R. Christie, Aurora, Nemesis and Clio, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26,
4 (1993), pp. 391-405

6 D. C. Lindberg, R. L. Numbers, R. Porter, M. J. Nye, T. M. Porter, D. Ross, K. Park and L. Daston

(eds), The Cambridge History of Science, (Cambridge, 2003).

7 A. Cunningham and P. Williams, De-Centring the 'Big Picture': "The Origins of Modern
Science" and the Modern Origins of Science, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26,
4 (1993), pp. 407-32

8 Ibid, pp. 413-5

individuals, philosophies or disciplines of, what is known today, as Science,

but could equally have been about natural philosophy or shamanism, or any
other form of natural inquiry.9 In addition this change in the perceptions of
the History of Science from the grand central narrative to the investigation of
isolated incidents in the History of Science helped the discipline move away
from the Heroic Science of the 19th and early 20th centuries, and reduce
instances of what is known as whiggish or present centred history. 10
In addition, the work of people like Barry and Pickstone, drawing on the
groundwork lain by the likes of Kuhn and Foucault, has highlighted the
problems with the perception of science in synthetic studies. 11 Science
became understood by many in the 1960s and onwards as but one way of
knowing the world in which we live, one method of understanding the
universe12. Traditional synthetic research tended to view science as that
process to which all natural philosophers, technicians, experimentalists and
others aspired. Science was a grand procession of thinkers and events unified
in a single notion of scientific progress. The new sociology of science, and the
understanding of the context not only of scientific discoveries but of the
scientists carrying them out, led to a greater understanding that science is
not, in fact, timeless13.

9 J. R. R. Christie, Aurora, Nemesis and Clio, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26,
4 (1993), pp. 391-405; and also A. Wilson and T. G. Ashplant, Whig History and PresentCentred History, The Historical Journal, 31, 1 (1988), pp. 1-16

10 A. R. Hall, On Whiggism, History of Science, 21, 1 (1983), pp. 45-60

11 A. Barry, The History of Measurement and the Engineers of Space, The British Journal for
the History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp. 459-68; and also J. Pickstone, Ways of Knowing:
Towards a Historical Sociology of Science, Technology and Medicine, The British Journal for the
History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp. 433-458.

12 J. Pickstone, Ways of Knowing: Towards a Historical Sociology of Science, Technology and

Medicine, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp. 433-458.

An additional factor in the paucity of such grand, synthetic analyses of the

history of science, is that of their scale. As Christie points out, modern works
on the history only of specific disciplines in science, tend to produce very
large books covering very small areas. A synthetic study incorporating
modern historiological approaches to Science would, by necessity, be
enormous, and again Christie and others remind us; in academia today you
must publish often in order to gain recognition, precluding devotion of
decades of ones life to a singular piece of work.

14

The corollary of this is the assumption that a synthetic study would therefore
require the collaboration of a great many different specialists, as no one
Science-historian (Christies Clio15) could know all that needs be known for an
examination of science today. Putting aside the well highlighted problems in
any academic endeavour with epistemic specialisation (especially well
defined by Hardwig16) when working as part of a much larger whole 17, many
acknowledge that getting historians and scientists to work together on a
volume with a common methodology and goal could be difficult.

18

In short

therefore, a new understanding of the meaning of science, and the difficulties

13 A. Cunningham and P. Williams, De-Centring the 'Big Picture': "The Origins of Modern
Science" and the Modern Origins of Science, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26,
4 (1993), pp. 413

14 J. R. R. Christie, Aurora, Nemesis and Clio, The British Journal for the History of Science,
26, 4 (1993), pp. 391-405; And also G. Parchomovsky, Publish or Perish, Michigan Law
Review, 98, 4 (2000), pp. 926-952.

15 Ibid, pp 401-402.
16 H. Longino,"The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge", THE STANFORD
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY (2013 Edition), ed. Zalta, E. N., Accessed 20 October 2013,
at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/scientific-knowledge-social/

17 J. Hardwig, Epistemic Dependence, Journal of Philosophy, 82, 7 (1985) pp. 335-49

18 C. Hakfoort, The Missing Syntheses in the Historiography of Science, History of Science,
29, 2 (1991), pp. 207-16.

for traditional synthetic research which were perceived on account of that,

led to the synthetic study being considered a research method of the past.
The state of play
The diminishing of synthetic studies, and the rise of what could be called the
microsociology of science,19 led to a common belief among both scientists
and science-historians that a new synthetic study was not possible, that it
would be too difficult to combine all the diverse fields of science into a single
narrative .20 However the presence of modern pseudo-synthetic or even,
arguably, fully synthetic (The Cambridge History of Science does a fairly good
job at examining a broad spectrum of scientific enquiry, though remains fairly
present-centred21) helps illustrate the fact that synthetic studies of the
History of Science, despite the near-universality of much more focussed
studies, or collections thereof (what Christie called small pictures in the
History of Science22), are still very much sought after.

23

Indeed several

Academics in the field of History of science, Scientists such as Andrew

Cunningham, and science-historians such as Hakfoort 24 argue cases for a new

19 A. Barry, The History of Measurement and the Engineers of Space, The British Journal for
the History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp. 459-68

20 J. R. R. Christie, Aurora, Nemesis and Clio, The British Journal for the History of Science,
26, 4 (1993), pp. 391-405; and also C. Hakfoort, The Missing Syntheses in the Historiography
of Science, History of Science, 29, 2 (1991), pp. 207-16.

21 D. C. Lindberg, R. L. Numbers, R. Porter, M. J. Nye, T. M. Porter, D. Ross, K. Park and L.

Daston (eds), The Cambridge History of Science, (Cambridge, 2003).

22 J. R. R. Christie, Aurora, Nemesis and Clio, The British Journal for the History of Science,
26, 4 (1993), pp. 394

23 Ibid 1-2
24 G. Cantor, Casper Hakfoort (1955-99), The British Journal for the History of Science, 33,
(2000), pp. 227-229

kind of synthetic, coalesced study of the history of science 25. Synthetic

studies therefore, having fallen from grace, were once again being sought in
the 1980s onwards.

As mentioned above, in the present there are some studies of the History of
Science which seek to improve upon, or perhaps emulate, traditional
synthetic studies without credence to a clear unifying philosophy. However,
there are none at present which attempt to match the (perceived) scope of
traditional synthetic research, no modern work attempts to chronicle all the
events of natural inquiry in the way The Edge of Objectivity may have done
(at least, none that are apparent). Nor do modern works in the field examine
science exclusively as a progression of heroic discoveries from a few great
people, or the history of science as being one of constant progress from the
first men to the modern age26. There are several reasons however why one
could be seen to be important; Cunningham and Williams argue that, due to
the dominant nature of science as a discipline in the modern world, a survey
of science as a whole, only really possible via synthetic research, would in
essence constitute a survey of humanity itself.27 This is primarily proposed as
accomplishable only if the scope of the synthetic study is limited; a general
survey of all scientific developments in the modern age (though this is not
defined by Cunningham et al. an example would be a synthetic History of
25 A. Cunningham and P. Williams, De-Centring the 'Big Picture': "The Origins of Modern
Science" and the Modern Origins of Science, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26,
4 (1993), pp. 407-32; and also C. Hakfoort, The Missing Syntheses in the Historiography of
Science, History of Science, 29, 2 (1991), pp. 207-16.

26 J. R. R. Christie, Aurora, Nemesis and Clio, The British Journal for the History of Science,
26, 4 (1993), pp. 391-405

27 A. Cunningham and P. Williams, De-Centring the 'Big Picture': "The Origins of Modern
Science" and the Modern Origins of Science, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26,
4 (1993), pp. 407-32

Science from 1939 onwards).

28

Similarly Hakfoort too argues for a new

synthesis, believing that to create one now would be a crowning achievement

for the field of the History of Science, and that it might be done by surveying
historiological techniques and phases within the discipline, rather than the
fact of science-history29. Here then we can see that some science historians
not only believe that the once-defunct field of synthetic research into the
History of Science is still viable, but that it is, in fact, essential.
However, many in the field of History of Science believe that a new synthesis
is impossible, or too challenging to attempt at this time. It has been argued
by many, for instance, that science as a discipline is simply too large, what
with the explosion of scientific knowledge created by the advent of Big
Science in the 1940s, corporate science in the 1950s and Internet enabled
research in the 1980s onwards, to allow for a synthetic study to even hope to
constitute a representation of science in the past or present.

30

Others believe

that the change in the ways we define science have changed so much over
the past century that a study attempting to marry that of the 20 th century
and that of any (or all) or the preceding centuries must surely be doomed to
failure.

31

28 Ibid, pp. 418.

29 C. Hakfoort, The Missing Syntheses in the Historiography of Science, History of Science,
29, 2 (1991), pp. 207-16.

30 For this see especially J. R. R. Christie, Aurora, Nemesis and Clio, The British Journal for
the History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp. 391-405; A. Barry, The History of Measurement and
the Engineers of Space, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp. 45968; and J Pickstone, Ways of Knowing: Towards a Historical Sociology of Science, Technology
and Medicine, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp. 433-458.

31 See above, but also A. Cunningham and P. Williams, De-Centring the 'Big Picture': "The
Origins of Modern Science" and the Modern Origins of Science, The British Journal for the
History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp. 407-32; and also J. W. Leavitt, Medicine in Context: A
Review Essay of the History of Medicine, The American Historical Review, 95, 5 (1990), pp.
1471-84; and also A. Wilson and T. G. Ashplant, Whig History and Present-Centred History,
The Historical Journal, 31, 1 (1988), pp. 1-16.

In sum
The history Science as we understand it today has been examined for some
time, even when studying periods when what we would consider science
never occurred, and what was considered science at the time of study would
be considered a foolhardy endeavour32. This Present-Centredness,
increasingly maligned in many more recent historiographical works, was a
factor in the apparent old-fashionedness and apparent irrelevance of the
traditional synthetic study which developed after the Second World War 33.
The reliance of old synthetic research upon central, overarching philosophies
also contributed to its downfall, as with the diversification of science it
became more and more difficult to justify labelling all science, in both
modern and historic meanings of the word, as being a part of, or contributing
to, a single causality, be that progress, production or Protestantism 34.
As a result, the synthetic study, certainly in the History of Science, fell out of
vogue. And from the mid-1960s to this day, the majority of major History of
Science publications focus on a perception of science within specific,
focussed, spatio-temporal parameters35. This allows the findings of such a
study to be presented without need for recourse to a central philosophy or
terminal paradigm. It also allows for researchers to work alone with a good
chance of being well versed in the totality of the area they study, as well as

32 A. Cunningham and P. Williams, De-Centring the 'Big Picture': "The Origins of Modern
Science" and the Modern Origins of Science, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26,
4 (1993), pp. 407-32

33 A. Wilson and T. G. Ashplant, Present-Centred History and the Problem of Historical

Knowledge, The Historical Journal, 31, 2 (1988) pp. 253-74

34 A. Barry, The History of Measurement and the Engineers of Space, The British Journal for
the History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp. 459-68

35 J. R. R. Christie, Aurora, Nemesis and Clio, The British Journal for the History of Science,
26, 4 (1993), pp. 391-405

permitting Historians, Scientists, Philosophers and so on to publish a lot and

to publish quickly, which is much more important in the modern academia,
where the use of the internet enables publications to be disseminated, read,
and reviewed almost instantaneously36.
However, there is a growing case for a new kind of synthetic study, and
indeed it seems the case that a modern one would be multiply useful; as a
vindication of the discipline, as providing an understanding of science today,
as catalysing the teaching of historians and scientists alike in the general
history of science, as well as numerous other benefits. However, there is a
great deal of disagreement over whether a new synthesis is viable, as
opposed to desirable. In view of some of the arguments prevalent in recent
historiographical research, it seems the case that most Science-Historians
(regardless of background) are all waiting for another to act first. Most
Science-Historians agree that a cohesive, far reaching synthetic study of past
and present science would be greatly advantageous, but no one is willing
to take the first step; to outline the parameters for a new synthesis, be that a
collective history of science, built up from the work of hundreds, perhaps
thousands of Science Historians, or a survey of extant understandings of
what is meant by science, both now and in the past, or perhaps an
exhaustive chronicle of natural inquiry, leaving behind the concept of
science as a discrete discipline, and more a way of expressing the human
desire to satisfy their curiosity, and the overwhelming multitude of extramural factors affecting that desire, political, personal, pecuniary and so on. It
seems that there are many different ways that a new synthesis might be
approached, but no one is willing to figuratively step out from the trenches
and charge the topic. Regardless of the methodology chosen, an academic
corpus less timid than our own is needed, and will perhaps be provided as the
36 Ibid, pp. 401.

body of research and study into the nature of syntheses, and of science,
grows exponentially into the 21st century.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
n.d.

Barry, A., The History of Measurement and the Engineers of Space, The British
Journal for the History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp. 459 468
Cantor, G., Casper Hakfoort (1955-99), The British Journal for the History of Science,
33, (2000), pp. 227-229
Christie, J.R.R., Aurora, Nemesis and Clio, The British Journal for the History of
Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp. 391-405
Cunningham, A. and Williams, P., De-Centring the 'Big Picture': "The Origins of
Modern Science" and the Modern Origins of Science, The British Journal for the
History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp 407-432
Hakfoort, C., The Missing Syntheses in the Historiography of Science, History of
Science, 29, 2 (1991), pp. 207-16.
Hardwig, J., Epistemic Dependence, Journal of Philosophy, 82, 7 (1985) pp. 335-49
Hall, A. R., On Whiggism, History of Science, 21, 1 (1983), pp. 45-60
Leavitt, J. W., Medicine in Context: A Review Essay of the History of Medicine, The
American Historical Review, 95, 5 (1990), pp. 1471-1484
Lindberg, D.C., Numbers, R. L., Porter, R., Nye, M. J., Porter, T. M., Ross, D., Park, K., and
Daston, L., (eds), The Cambridge History of Science, (Cambridge, 2003).
Longino, H., "The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge", THE STANFORD
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY (2013 Edition), ed. Zalta, E. N., Accessed 20 October
2013, at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/scientific-knowledge-social/
Parchomovsky, G. Publish or Perish, Michigan Law Review, 98, 4 (2000), pp. 926-952.
Pickstone, J., Ways of Knowing: Towards a Historical Sociology of Science, Technology
and Medicine, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp. 433-458
Wilson, A. and Ashplant, T. G., Whig History and Present-Centred History, The
Historical Journal, 31, 1 (1988), pp. 1-16
-------------------------------------, Present-Centred History and the Problem of Historical
Knowledge, The Historical Journal, 31, 2 (1988) pp. 253-274