Download - Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
1/38
Pluralism in Historiography: A Case Study of Case Studies1
Katherina Kinzel
[Preprint version. An edited version appears in Sauer, Tillman and Raphael
Scholl (eds.). forthcoming. The Philosophy of Historical Case Studies.
Boston Studies in the Philosophy and istory of Science. !ordrecht"
Springer.#
The story of the Scienti$c Revolution in the %&th and %'thcenturies has een
told many times. t has een reconstructed in a discontinuous narrative y
Ale*andre +oyr -ho descried it as a fundamental intellectual
transformation triumphing in the mathematiation of nature (+oyr %/0&).
t has een told as an origin story y erert Butter$eld for -hom it mar1s
the advent of modernity (Butter$eld %/2/). 3ther authors have presented
the story emphasiing continuities et-een modern scienti$c vie-s and
medieval and Renaissance 1no-ledge practices. 4or instance, Alistair
5romie argued that e*perimental science had een practiced $rst y
medieval natural philosophers (5romie %/06). And 4rances 7ates stressed
continuities et-een the ermetic85aalist traditions of natural magic and
scienti$c empiricism (7ates %/92). :ore recently, the prevalence of
microhistory has led to a destailiation of ig picture narratives, calling
into ;uestion the very notion of the Scienti$c Revolution (Secord %//6).
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
2/38
deologically contested issues li1e these are ound to provo1e
disagreement. The e*istence of plural narratives of the Scienti$c
Revolution may simply re=ect the changing ideological evaluations of
science and its place in society.
o-ever, -e encounter pluralism in the historiography of science
not only -hen it comes to large scale historical transformations of great
political and ideological signi$cance. @ocal historical cases that, at least at
$rst sight, appear to e ideologically innocuous have met -ith the same
fate" they have een reconstructed several times, from a variety of
diEerent vie-points, and they have come to support diEerent philosophical
conclusions. There e*ist rival case studies of events as local as a speci$c
measurement procedure, an e*perimental derivation, or an episode of
theory8choice. 4or e*ample, :ili1anFs oil drop e*periments -hich
measured the charge of the electron have een reconstructed from
competing sociological and rationalist perspectives (Barnes, Bloor, and
enry %//9, %'G20? olton %/&'? 4ran1lin %/'9, %2G%9H). There e*ist
diverging accounts of the historical fate of :endelFs e*perimentally
derived la-s of inheritance (for an overvie- see Sapp %//). And the
victory of @avoisierFs o*ygen8ased over PriestleyFs phlogiston8ased
theory has een interpreted in light of diEerent philosophical accounts of
scienti$c change and theory choice Gpluralist, structural8realist, rationalist
and sociological (5hang H%H? @adyman H%%? :usgrave %/&9? +usch
forthcoming). n some cases, the various reconstructions of the same
historical events are compatile and complement each other. But in the
e*amples mentioned aove, the diEerent case studies are in open con=ict.
They involve incompatile factual claims, give competing causal
e*planations, carry opposed epistemic evaluations, tell diEerent narratives
and reach rival philosophical conclusions.
This paper deals -ith the situations of con=ict et-een diEerent
case studies of the same historical episodes. t addresses t-o ;uestions"
4irst, -hich features of historical reconstruction and representation give
rise to such con=ictsI Second, ho- can -e assess rival historical case
studies and restrict historiographical pluralismI Although elieve that my
ans-ers to these ;uestions apply to historiography in general, focus my
H
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
3/38
discussion on case studies in the history of science and in history and
philosophy of science (PS).
n order to ans-er the $rst ;uestion, discuss the interpretative and
constructive dimension of historiographical methodology. :y account
highlights the selective and theory8laden character of historical
representation and argues that the narrative dimension of historiography
is central for the 1no-ledge that a historical case study can convey. Based
on this account, analye in detail four case studies paired around t-o
historical episodes, and the methodological strategies employed in these
case studies. sho- that disagreement aout historical facts emerges from
the selective, theory8laden and narrative aspects of historical
methodology.
The second ;uestion ans-er y discussing diEerent criteria for
assessing historical accounts. note a dilemma in the evaluation of
historical reconstructions. 3n the one hand, there e*ist neutral and almost
universally accepted evaluation criteria. But these criteria are -ea1. They
cannot al-ays decide et-een con=icting reconstructions of the same
historical episodes. 3n the other hand, there are stronger methodological
criteria that constrain historiographical pluralism more drastically. Alas,
these strong criteria are often not neutral -ith respect to the sustantial
theoretical issues at sta1e in situations of con=ict et-een historical
accounts. Because of this dilemma, argue, -e have to accept some
degree of pluralism in historiography.H
:y paper has four parts. n the $rst part, indicate on a general level
-hich features of historical discourse give rise to pluralism. n the second
part, present a $ne8grained account of disagreement in historiography y
analying in detail four historical case studies. n the third part, proceed
to the prolem of assessing rival case studies and discuss diEerent
historiographical evaluation criteria. n the fourth part, apply these
H 5omparale issues arising -ithin the natural sciences have een recentlyaddressed in deates on scienti$c pluralism (5hang H%H? +ellert, @ongino, and>aters H9). Although ac1no-ledge that there may e*ist important parallelset-een pluralism in science and pluralism in historiography, in this paper focuson the latter only. Jote also that my aim in this paper is to provide a descriptiveaccount of pluralism in historiography. do not see1 to ans-er the normative;uestion -hether pluralism is epistemically desirale or not.
6
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
4/38
criteria to the case studies analyed in the second part. The upshot of my
discussion is that although historiographical pluralism is limited, it cannot
e completely eradicated.
1. Sources of Historiographical Pluralism
>hat is it aout the character of historical representation that enales
sustantially diEerent retellings of the same eventsI o- are competing
historical reconstructions possileI Part of the ans-er is that historical
discourse is a constructive and interpretative endeavor, and that
historians can dra- on a variety of diEerent methodological strategies
-hen reconstructing the past. n this section, discuss, on a general and
astract level, three features of historical discourse that can help to
understand -hy con=icting accounts of the same events are possile" (i)
selectivity, (ii) theory8ladenness and (iii) narrativity. claim that these are
not merely contingent features of historical discourse. n fact, they seem
necessary. shall discuss each in turn.
(i Selectivity. @i1e the Borgesian map of the Kmpire that has the sie ofthe Kmpire, and coincides point8to8point -ith its territory, the complete
historical account is an asurdity. All historical reconstructions are
selective, and they are selective in three important -ays. 4irst, a historical
account, unli1e past reality, has a clearly mar1ed eginning and an
endpoint. 4rom the in$nite series of historical processes and events, the
historical account selects an episode or case that is identi$ed -ith a $nite
time8span. Second, once the time8span is determined, the historicalaccount selects some events -ithin that time8span and treats them as
constitutive of the episode, -hile e*cluding others. Third, of the events
included, some are highlighted, -hile others are relegated to a
suordinate status.Selectivity is a necessary feature of all representation. And recent
discussions of representation in science have analyed in great detail the
selective choices that structure ho- scienti$c models represent their
target domain. -ill dra- on these discussions, and in particular on
2
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
5/38
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
6/38
in line -ith his general aims. The actual selections made are aim8
dependent.3ther e*amples can e generated -ith ease. f our aim is to e*plain
historical change then the selection of discontinuous features of the
historical episode under study, and the isolation of factors that may e
seen to have caused or motivated these changes is the ovious strategy
one should go y. f the aim is to create an e*perience of
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
7/38
-hich types of sources are relevant for the reconstruction of a given
episode, as -ell as Oudgments regarding -hich types of sources are
reliale are made y reference to theoretical ac1ground 1no-ledge.
Then, after the sources have een chosen, these sources need to e
interpreted in a consistent manner" the sources need to e related to each
other? past events, actions and meanings need to e inferred from them?
relations (possily causal) et-een the derived events need to e
identi$ed? and the events need to e assigned a certain signi$cance -ith
respect to each other or -ith respect to the present. And each of these
interpretative maneuvers relies on theory. :oreover, there is not only an
up-ards inferential and interpretative process that leads from the sources
to the facts, ut also a do-n-ards process in the concept8dependent
identi$cation of historical events. Kach historical event is an event only
under a description, and hence its identi$cation is only possile if the
identity conditions for the event are speci$ed" hat the unit8event is depends on the telling of
itD(Roth %/'', /).
There are very li1ely many other forms of theory8ladenness in
historiography. But these considerations suce to indicate ho- theory8
ladenness can e a source of pluralism" diEerent theoretical assumptions
and diEerent methodological commitments -ill have conse;uences for the
selection of relevant sources, for ho- historical events are reconstructed
from the sources, for ho- they are interpreted, e*plained and evaluated,
for the individuation of historical events, etc. Since historical facts are
theory8laden, disagreement is li1ely to emerge et-een historical accounts
that reconstruct the past on the asis of diEerent theoretical assumptions.
(iii "arrativity. A third and $nal feature that leads to pluralism is the
narrative character of historical discourse. The narratological tradition
-ithin the philosophy of history has long claimed that the peculiar form of
historical representation G that -hich distinguishes historical
reconstructions from other types of representational discourse G consists in
the use of narrative. Rendering past events, states and processes
intelligile re;uires that a story e told aout them. By ecoming
&
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
8/38
entrenched in a story historical events achieve signi$cance and meaning
and -hich story is told is relevant for the 1no-ledge a historical account
can convey.2
ayden >hite oserved that in order to uild a historical account, the
series of historical events (the chronicle) has to e molded into a story
that characteries these events in terms of eginning, transitional phase
and endpoint(>hite %/&6, 0). And according to >hite, in this process, the
choice of narrative form or mode of emplotment is crucial. This is ecause
narratives
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
9/38
and the same historical episode can e rendered intelligile in manifold
-ays y dra-ing on diEerent story types and modes of emplotment.0
Aout the same events, many diEerent stories can e told.
The more general ;uestion that follo-s from the discussion of selectivity,theory8ladenness and narrativity in historical discourse is ho- strong
pluralism is or needs to e. >hite himself remains some-hat amivalent
aout the strength of pluralism. n some passages he grants that there are
epistemic constraints on -hat types of narrative can e plausily told
aout a speci$c historical episode (>hite %/&', 2&82', 0/). n other
passages, ho-ever, he suggests that there are not any limits on
narrativiation? hite %/&6, 266). ere it appears that
>hite is not only a pluralist, ut also an anything goes relativist for -hom
there are no epistemic constraints -hatsoever that -ould restrict -hat
narratives -e can meaningfully and plausily tell.:y o-n pluralist thesis is not that radical. n later sections, -ill
sho- that there are important epistemic restrictions on the range of
permissile alternative historical reconstructions. But efore doing so,
-ant to e*amine historiographical pluralism in actu y studying in detail
the -ays in -hich rival historical methodologies lead to diEerent accounts
of past events.
2. The Structure of isagreement: !our Case Studies
Pluralism is most interesting, or most controversial, -hen t-o conditions
otain? namely (a) -hen there e*ist con=icting accounts of the same
historical episodes, and () -hen it is not ovious -hich of the diEerent
reconstructions is the correct, ade;uate or most plausile one.
0 :any aspects of >hiteFs narratological account are deeply prolematic. 3n theone hand, his structuralist ta*onomy of diEerent modes of historical -riting isstatic, arti$cial and irritatingly ahistorical. 3n the other hand, from insights intothe constructive dimension of historiography, >hite dra-s radical conclusionsaout its suOective and $ctional character. share neither >hiteFs structuralistinclinations, nor his radical suOectivism, and -ish to ta1e from his re=ectionsonly the central theses that historical accounts have a narrative structure andthat there can e*ist plural narrative emplotments of the same historical events.
/
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
10/38
n the previous section discussed ho- historiography can ful$ll
condition (a) and discerned three astract features of historical discourse
that lead to pluralism. This section e*plores ho- these astract features
are realied in actual historiographical methodologies. t deals -ith the
concrete structure of disagreement in four historical case studies" arry
5ollins and Allan 4ran1linFs rival accounts of the early gravitational
radiation e*periments and Alan :usgrave and aso1 5hangFs diEerent
reconstructions of ho- phlogiston theory -as aandoned. K*ploring ho-
these case studies ful$ll condition (a), try to remain as neutral as possile
et-een the competing accounts. The prolem of evaluation and the
;uestion to -hich e*tent the rival accounts satisfy condition () address
in later sections.
structure my analysis of disagreement y introducing t-o levels on -hich
diEerences et-een rival case studies can e oserved? () the level of
factual claims, and () the level of methodological strategies. argue that
diEerences arising on the level of factual claims can e traced to
diEerences in methodological strategies. t is on this level of
methodological strategies that the astract features of historiography
discussed aove unfold their pluralist eEects. As -ill sho- in my analysis
of the four case studies, the reconstruction of past episodes of science
involves (i) selective choices, (ii) theory8laden reconstruction procedures
and (iii) techni;ues of narrative emplotment. !iEerences in selection,
theory8ladenness and narrativiation give rise to con=icts aout -hat
e*actly happened in the historical episode under study.
This is, elieve, a general point aout historiography" factual claims
in history are al-ays the result of comple* methodological processes and
these methodological processes al-ays involve selection, theory8
ladenness and narrativiation. o-ever, it needs to e noted that the case
studies have chosen elong to the PS conte*t and that each of them
comes -ith an e*plicit philosophical agenda. t may e argued that case
studies in general history and in the history of science diEer from those
produced in PS ecause they are not to the same degree committed to
e*plicit philosophical doctrines. This is certainly correct. n general history,
and in professional historiography of science, theory8ladenness does not
%
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
11/38
typically ta1e the form of e*plicit philosophical concepts eing applied to
the interpretation of the historical material. o-ever, elieve this does
not ma1e case studies in general history and the historiography of science
less theory8laden. t only means that the theoretical assumptions that
structure the reconstruction of the past, and the -ays in -hich they do so,
are more sutle than they are in PS.
The #ravity $aves %pisode
egin my analysis -ith the dispute over the interpretation of the high8=u*
gravity -aves episode. arry 5ollinsF reconstruction of the early attempts
to measure gravitational radiation e*perimentally is central to the
sociology of scienti$c 1no-ledge canon, ecause it highlights the
relevance of social factors in the closure of scienti$c controversies. Allan
4ran1lin formulates his o-n account of the episode in direct opposition to
5ollins, arguing that social factors -ere not necessary for the closure of
the deate. The historical events oth authors can agree on can e
summaried as follo-s" &n the late ')*s and early '+*s, oseph $eber
developed the rst gravitational -ave detectors and claied to have
ac/uired positive results. &n the years to follo-, other laboratories tried to
replicate his results -ith slightly di0erent e1periental setups, but they
did not anage to reproduce his observations. 2y the late '+*s, $eber3s
clai to have observed high 4u1es of gravitational radiation had lost all
credibility and -as re5ected by the scientic counity. !espite their
agreement on these points, 5ollins and 4ran1lin accounts diEer so radically
that the t-o authors ta1e the case of >eer to support t-o con=icting
philosophical doctrines. o- is this possileI There are oth ovious and
sutle diEerences et-een the rival reconstructions.
(& 6actual clais. 5ollins and 4ran1lin disagree on ho- and -hy >eerFs
claims -ere reOected. They ma1e diEerent factual claims aout the
historical episode. 5ollins claims that the availale evidence and rational
%%
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
12/38
arguments underdetermined the decision against >eer, and that,
eventually, social processes led to the reOection of his results. 4ran1lin
claims the e*act opposite. According to him, rational delieration -as
causally sucient for a decision to e reached. Both authors claim that the
historical material in fact supports their respective vie-s of the relevant
causal relations. According to 5ollins, the po-erful rhetorical intervention
of one of >eerFs critics (scientist ) -as decisive in tipping the scales to
>eerFs disadvantage (5ollins %/'0, /6G/0). 4ran1lin, y contrast, thin1s
Fs rhetorical attac1 played only a minor role and argues that it -as the
sheer ;uantity of negative evidence against >eer that eventually led
scientists to discard his results (4ran1lin %//2, 29'G9/).
(&& 7ethodological Strategies. To understand ho- these diEerent factual
claims come aout, -e have to ta1e a loo1 at the diEerent methodological
strategies that the t-o authors apply. n the follo-ing, -ill argue that
5ollins and 4ran1lin select diEerent aspects of the past to e represented,
reconstruct events on the asis of diEerent philosophical assumptions and
tell diEerent narratives. This accounts for the disagreement et-een them.
(i Selection. >hen 5ollins reconstructs the scienti$c deates surrounding
the e*periments, he not only focuses on ho- the scientists -ho attempted
to replicate >eerFs initial results responded to his claims and arguments.
e also presents in great detail ho- they responded to each other. And he
reveals that scientists -ere in severe disagreement as to ho- to interpret
and e*plain their failures to replicate >eerFs $ndings. They found fault
not only -ith >eerFs e*perimental setup, ut also -ith each otherFs
e*perimental strategies (5ollins %/'0, '28'', /8/H). 5ollins selects those
aspects of the deate that indicate that there -as profound disagreement
in the scienti$c community.
But these aspects are almost completely asent from 4ran1linFs
reconstruction. 4ran1lin presents the arguments in such a -ay that they
fall into t-o opposed camps" >eer and his critics. The interrelations
et-een >eerFs critics and their mutual criticisms are not ta1en into
account. 4ran1lin is ;uite clear that, for him, the situation is one of
%H
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
13/38
agreement rather than disagreement" eerFs critics might
have disagreed aout the force of particular arguments does not mean
that they did not agree that >eer -as -rong.D (4ran1lin %//2, 2&H) So
-hile 5ollins devotes much attention to the various points of disagreement
et-een >eerFs critics, 4ran1lin selects and highlights points of
agreement rather than disagreement.
Another salient diEerence regarding the selection of historical events
concerns the role of scientist . 5ollins places at a central point in the
narrative" 4rustrated y the scienti$c communityFs hesitance to reOect
>eerFs results, -hich he too1 to e mista1en from the eginning, sets
out to destroy the crediility of >eer and his oservation claims in a
series of polemical attac1s. n 5ollinsF reconstruction, Fs rhetorical
intervention constitutes the social cause that tips the scales against >eer
and leads to the closure of the deate (iid., /68/0).4ran1lin, in contrast, emphasies the continuity of negative results
that e*isted efore and after Fs intervention. e e*cludes s intervention
from his account. According to him, it -as the accumulation of negative
results that led to the eventual reOection of >eerFs claims, not the
rhetorical intervention of one scientist.5ollins and 4ran1linFs diEerent factual claims are a result of the
selective choices they ma1e. These choices structure -hich historical
events and -hich aspects of the scienti$c deates under study are
included and emphasied in their rival historical reconstructions.
(ii Theory!ladenness. A asic diEerence et-een the t-o authors concerns
their handling of the sources. 5ollins e*tends the realm of sources fromthe pulished record to also include intervie-s -ith the scientists involved,
-hile 4ran1lin puts the emphasis on the pulished material. These
decisions are informed y theoretical assumptions -hich the authors
themselves ma1e e*plicit. 5ollins dra-s on intervie-s so as to avoid
pulication ias (5ollins %//2, 2/'), -hile 4ran1lin elieves the pulished
record to e more reliale than other sources (4ran1lin %//2, 290).
:ore comple* forms of theory8ladenness can e oserved in ho- the
t-o authors interpret the historical material. 5ollin descries the
%6
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
14/38
disagreement among >eerFs critics y referring to the concept of the
e*perimentersF regress. The e*perimentersF regress typically occurs at the
frontiers of en;uiry -hen ne- phenomena are measured -ith ne-
e*perimental apparatus. n these situations, ascriptions of -hen the
apparatus is -or1ing properly hinge on -hether it produces the -anted
outcome, -hile, at the same time, -hat the correct outcome is ecomes
de$ned y reference to the ;uality of the e*perimental setup (5ollins
%/'%, 62? 5ollins %/'0, '2).Because he applies the theoretical concept of the e*perimentersF
regress to the historical material, he can interpret the situation not only in
terms of disagreement, ut also in terms of contingency and open8
endedness. e claims that the historical process could have ta1en a
diEerent traOectory than it actually did.
3viously the sheer -eight of negative opinion -as a factor,
ut given the tractaility, as it -ere, of all the negative
evidence, it did not have to add up so decisively. There -as a
-ay of assemling the evidence, noting the =a-s in each
grain, such that outright reOection of the high =u* claim -as
not the necessary inference. (iid., /%)
4ran1lin engages his reconstruction of the historical events -ith a
philosophical agenda diametrically opposed to 5ollinsF. e see1s to sho-
that the resolution of the deate -as not contingent, ut the only
rationally acceptale outcome. e applies the concept of roustness to the
historical material to argue his point. >hen 5ollins concluded that the
plurality of interpretative options mar1ed the situation as open8ended and
contingent, 4ran1lin elieves that the diEerent arguments reinforced one
another. The fact that a series of slightly diEerent e*perimental setups
failed to replicate >eerFs claims renders the negative results more
roust? it strengthens the argument against >eer.Again, the diEerences in factual claims can e seen to rest on
diEerent theory8laden reconstruction procedures. 5ollins and 4ran1lin
select diEerent sources and then interpret these sources y reference to
diEerent theoretical concepts. 5ollins applies the concepts of the
%2
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
15/38
e*perimentersF regress and contingency, -hile 4ran1lin dra-s on the
concept of roustness.
(iii "arrative. 4inally, 5ollins and 4ran1lin tell diEerent stories of the
historical events. The con=icting factual claims they ma1e rest on diEerentnarrative emplotments of the episode. n order to estalish this point,
propose a slightly unconventional practice of analysis" -ill read the
historical case studies as one -ould read a novel or a short story and
apply some asic lessons from literary criticism. This -ill enale me to
identify the narrative structure of the respective case studies and to sho-
ho- diEerent narrative structures carry diEerent claims aout the past.
Proceeding in this manner, 5ollins historical narrative is estdescried as an ironic tragedy. t resemles a tragedy ecause it tells the
story of a social do-nfall and does so in discontinuous terms. According to
the literary theorist Jorthrop 4rye, a tragic plot is essentially a story of
e*clusion in -hich the hero is e*pelled or isolated from his society (4rye
%/0&, 60G26). The story of >eer, as 5ollins presents it, is such a story"
>eer is e*cluded y the society to -hich he tries to elong. :oreover,
the tragic plot is usually discontinuous, characteried y a radical rea1"efore and after 3edipus $nds out that he 1illed his father and married his
mother, efore and after @ady :aceth dies and :aceth $nally realies
he has een tric1ed y the -itches. n 5ollinsF narrative the discontinuity is
Fs intervention. By structuring events in terms of discontinuity the tragic
plot re=ects the demand for identifying a causally decisive turning point.
>hat ma1es the tragedy an ironic one is that the hero is not causally
responsile for his fate. As 4rye e*plains, eerFs do-nfall is
not a result of him eing in error. >hat happened to him -as at least
%0
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
16/38
partly due to circumstance and the story could -ell have ended diEerently.
is -as a contingent do-nfall. The historical claims 5ollins defends are
thus emodied in the narrative structure of the account.
Jot surprisingly then, 4ran1linFs narrative is fundamentally diEerent
from 5ollinsF. t can e read as an adventure story. Adventure stories
organie time in a strictly serial order. As :i1hail Ba1htin oserves, the
adventure story is constructed
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
17/38
turn to a second e*ample, the 5hemical Revolution. Although this
historical episode is more comple* than the gravity -aves case, my
discussion -ill e relatively rief and schematic. discuss and compare
t-o reconstructions of the episode, Alan :usgraveFs @a1atosian rational
reconstruction, and aso1 5hangFs attempt to moilie the episode as a
case in point for normative scienti$c pluralism. ere is -hat oth authors
can agree to have ta1en place in the 5hemical Revolution" The heyday of
phlogiston!based e1planations of cobustion and calcination occurred
bet-een '+** and '+*. &n the early '++*s ho-ever, 8ntoine 9avoisier
began to develop an alternative e1planatory frae-ork that dispensed
-ith phlogiston and instead postulated the e1istence of another
substance, naely o1ygen. 2oth the phlogiston and the o1ygen theories
en5oyed e1planatory and predictive successes, as -ell as deonstrating
appreciable proble!solving abilities. Ho-ever, both frae-orks also
faced anoalies and failures. Precise -eight easureents in later
e1perients favored the o1ygen!based frae-ork. %ventually, phlogiston
theories -ere abandoned. Beyond this asic agreement, :usgrave and
5hang oEer rival accounts of the processes through -hich phlogiston8
ased theories -ere replaced -ith o*ygen ased ones, rival e*planations
of -hy this occurred and competing epistemic evaluations of the
rationality and legitimacy of the victory of o*ygen.
(& 6actual Clais. :usgrave claims that phlogistonism constituted a
degenerating research program and -as reOected for that reason.
According to him, the 5hemical Revolution -as a rational process
(:usgrave %/&9, H0G9). 5hang, y contrast, claims that the phlogiston
theory -as not clearly inferior to its competitor (5hang H%H, %/GH/), and
that its potential had not een fully e*hausted at the time of its
aandonment (id., 26G2'). 4or these reasons, the reOection of phlogiston
-as a non8rational and premature decision.
(&& 7ethodological Strategies. As efore, an analysis of methodological
strategies -ill provide a etter understanding of ho- such diEerent factual
claims can emerge.
%&
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
18/38
(i Selection. :usgrave and 5hang delineate the episode of the 5hemical
Revolution in diEerent -ays. T-o aspects of their selective choices are
particularly salient. 4irst, 5hang situates the reOection of phlogiston theory
-ithin the roader conte*t of a long8term transformation of epistemic
practices, the rise of -hat he calls the compositionist system of 5hemistry.
According to 5hang, the reOection of phlogiston theory -as not rational in
itself, ut a mere epiphenomenon of this roader shift (iid., 6982H).
:usgrave, in contrast, chooses to represent the concrete interactions
et-een Priestley, 5avendish and @avoisier, ut he e*cludes long8term
transformations in 5hemistsF practices from his account.
Second, 5hang chooses to represent not only the actual historical
events, ut also -hat could have ecome of phlogiston theory, had it not
een aandoned. e presents a counterfactual history that phlogiston
theory could have fostered scienti$c progress had it een retained. n this
-ays, the counterfactual history ecomes part of the episode under study.
t is y including the roader conte*t of epistemic transformations in
5hemistry and the counterfactual ene$ts of phlogiston that 5hang can
claim the reOection of phlogiston theory to have een non8rational and
premature. :usgrave and 5hangFs diEerent verdicts on the rationality of
the 5hemical Revolution are underpinned y the diEerent selective choices
they ma1e.
(ii Theory!ladenness. A fundamental diEerence et-een :usgrave and
5hangFs reconstructions concerns temporality. :usgrave reconstructs the
development of the phlogistonist and o*ygenist rivals diachronically,
distinguishing et-een diEerent successor versions of the theories. e
applies @a1atosF conception of competing research programs to the
historical material? and a @a1atosian research program consists in a
diachronic series of successor versions of a theory.:usgrave also uses the concept of progressive and degenerating
research programs to evaluate the rivals. n his interpretation, oth
programs -ere successful efore %&&, and it -as only et-een %&& and
%&'0 that @avoisierFs o*ygen theory egan to outperform the phlogistonist
%'
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
19/38
program of Priestley and 5avendish. !uring that time span, the o*ygen
program developed in a coherent manner, according to :usgrave, each
ne- version mar1ed an increase in predictive po-er and theoretical
gro-th. The program -as progressive. The phlogiston program, in
contrast, -as confronted -ith increasing diculties and degenerated
(:usgrave %/&9, H0). This evaluation then allo-s for the verdict that the
reOection of the phlogistonist e*planations -as entirely rational" chemists
at the time realied that the phlogiston8ased system -as degenerating
and changed their allegiances.5hang reaches a very diEerent verdict. This is possile primarily
ecause his reconstruction is systematic rather than temporal. 5hang does
not recount the successive steps in -hich the t-o theories developed. e
applies a diEerent concept to the historical material, reconstructing the
rivals as holistically understood systems of practice. e analyses static
and systematic features of the phlogistonist and o*ygenist approaches,
listing the ;uestions the t-o systems addressed, the prolems they found
signi$cant and the epistemic values they emodied (5hang H%H, %/GH').5omparing the t-o systems, 5hang applies the concept of
methodological incommensuraility. According to his interpretation, othsystems -ere ale to solve the prolems -hich they considered important
in a manner that satis$ed the epistemic values that they adhered to.
t seems clear that each of the o*ygenist and phlogistonist
systems had its o-n merits and diculties, and that there
-ere diEerent standards according to -hich one or the other
-as etter supported y empirical evidence. [# [B#oth
systems -ere partially successful in their attempts to attain
-orth-hile goals and [# there -as no reason to clearly favor
one over the other. (id., H/)
As in the aove e*ample, -e can oserve ho- diEerences in the
theoretical assumptions that guide the historical interpretation translate
into diEerent factual claims" :usgrave engages in a diachronic
reconstruction and interprets the situation in terms of @a1atosian
con$rmation theory, using the concept of research programs. 3n this asis
%/
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
20/38
he reaches the conclusion that the 5hemical Revolution -as a rational
process. 5hang, in contrast, interprets the situation in terms of the
theoretical concept of methodological incommensuraility and $nds that
the decision -as not rational.
(iii "arrative. As in the e*ample aove, the historical claims are also
rought across y the -ay the story is told. :usgraveFs historical account
is -ell descried as a comedy. n a comedy, according to 4rye, the
complications, plot t-ists and revelations that the hero has to live through
efore succeeding are more important in determining the course of events
than the moral or intellectual ;ualities of the characters(4rye %/0&, %&).
Uust li1e a comedy, :usgraveFs narrative is driven not y the intentional
action of the characters, ut y une*pected plot t-ists. 4rom the moment
that @avoisierFs research program enters the stage, -e are confronted -ith
a series of sudden and une*pected changes of fate, some of -hich reveal
a deep historical irony. Repeatedly, @avoisierFs opponents are also his
helpers. They provide the insights -hich enale @avoisier to verify his
prediction (of -hat -ould later e called o*ygen), and later, to solve the
anomalies that troule his o*ygen program (:usgrave %/&9, %/2, HG%).
The comic emplotment in terms of une*pected plot t-ists accords -ith
:usgraveFs interpretation of the episode as rational. Scienti$c rationality
e*erts itself in the narrative as a egelian
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
21/38
prematurely deceased hero, 5hangFs narrative mourns unrealied
possiilities. t conOures up an image of -hat could have ecome of the
deceased had they not passed a-ay and see1s to estalish that
phlogiston, in line -ith 5hangFs normative pluralist agenda, should not
have een aandoned. To prove this point, 5hang engages in
counterfactual history aout -hat might have happened had phlogiston
theory een maintained (iid., 2H80). This counterfactual imagination
enales the Oudgment that the death of phlogiston -as not only not
rationally -arranted (and in this sense unOust) ut also premature if
measured against the possiilities for innovation, development and
discovery that it entailed. The elegiac practices of emoaning and praising
the deceased $t 5hangFs evaluation of the situation li1e a glove.
aving provided a detailed analysis of selected historical case studies,
hope to have made plausile t-o points. The $rst point is that there is not
one unprolematic -ay of deriving historical facts from the sources.
Rather, historians engage in comple* methodological strategies in order to
reconstruct, interpret, evaluate and e*plain past events, and the
methodological strategies of historiography involve selective choices,
theory8laden interpretations and narrative emplotments.Second, hope to have sho-n that diEerences arising on the level of
factual claims can e traced to diEerences in methodological strategies.
>hich selections are made -hen reconstructing historical happenings,
-hich theoretical assumptions guide the interpretation and evaluation of
past events, -hich narratives structure the historical material has
conse;uences for -hat factual claims a historical account can reach. Liven
these features of historiography, the e*istence of severe disagreement
et-een case studies of the same episodes does not appear surprising.
". #$aluating Historical Accounts
n my analysis aove, tried to stay as neutral as possile et-een the
rival historical accounts, and did not present one side of the con=ict as
more plausile or etter -arranted than the other. n this section, turn to
H%
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
22/38
the prolem of -hether and ho- -e can assess historical case studies and
settle con=icts such as those discussed.As stated efore, historiographical pluralism is most interesting if (a)
it occurs et-een con=icting historical accounts, and () the alternatives
on oEer are plausile to roughly similar e*tents. The ;uestion as to
-hether and ho- -e can assess competing historical case studies is of
central importance to historiographical pluralism, ecause it ears on
condition (), the issue of comparative plausiility" the stronger our
grounds for assessing case studies and for deciding et-een rival
reconstructions, the -ea1er is our pluralist scenario. f -e can al-ays
reach une;uivocal decisions et-een competing accounts, then there is
no room for pluralism in historiography. 3r at least the more controversial
forms of pluralism that occur et-een incompatile and con=icting
reconstructions -ill e ruled out. 3n the other e*treme, if -e can never
Oudge -hich of t-o or more alternative accounts is the most plausile,
then -e are confronted -ith a situation of e*treme pluralism, or even
anything8goes relativism.:y o-n approach ta1es a middle position et-een these t-o
e*tremes. argue that there indeed are epistemic considerations thatallo- for an evaluation of competing historical case studies. These
considerations place restrictions on the space of permissile alternatives
and hence restrict pluralism. o-ever, they are not strong enough to
al-ays yield an une;uivocal verdict as to -hich of t-o or more competing
reconstructions to prefer. n some cases, a neutral decision et-een rival
accounts may not e possile. n order to ma1e my point, egin y
considering -hat types of epistemic considerations -e can dra- on inorder to evaluate historical case studies. distinguish et-een (α) asic
and (β) comple* evaluation criteria. Then proceed to evaluating the
aove discussed case studies in terms of these considerations.
( α 2asic criteria. >hen historians and philosophers of science discuss the
merits of diEerent historical reconstructions and case studies, their
HH
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
23/38
evaluation criteria often remain implicit.9 o-ever, there seem to e*ist a
fe- rough and ready rules that one can dra- on -hen assessing the
;uality of a historical reconstruction. Some of them are related to the
practices of source criticism (ho- reliale are the sources used, ho- -ell
are the 1no-n sources covered, and ho- varied is the evidence citedI).
3thers concern the composition of the historiographical te*t itself (is the
historical argument consistent and intelligileI). 7et others relate to ho-
-ell the historical reconstruction $ts -ithin a roader system of 1no-ledge
(is the historical account consistent -ith accepted, incontrovertile
ac1ground 1no-ledgeI). Standards regarding source8reliaility and
source8variance, internal consistency, and consistency -ith accepted
ac1ground 1no-ledge are relatively uncontroversial and they are
commonly relied upon even -hen they are not made e*plicit. refer to this
type of evaluative standards as asic criteria.
The asic criteria have the advantage of eing relatively neutral -ith
regards to philosophical con=icts. That is, -hen using them to decide
et-een con=icting historical accounts, -e can usually e relatively
certain that -e are not already assuming a point at sta1e in the deate.
Re;uirements for internal consistency merely raise demands concerning
the logical or argumentative structure of the historical reconstruction.
Such demands seem to e neutral in relation to the theoretical
assumptions that might e at sta1e in a con=ict et-een rival historical
reconstructions.
5onsiderations regarding the reliaility, variance and completeness
of the sources are, as descried aove, not -ithout theoretical
presuppositions. >hether a historical account has covered the relevant
sources to a sucient degree and hence is
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
24/38
determined since it depends upon the aims and purposes of the historical
account that dra-s on these sources. Selectivity and the restriction of
covered sources is legitimate in principle, if it accords -ith and is
conducive to the aims of the historical account. 5ompleteness only refers
to the completeness of the sources relevant to the satisfaction of a speci$c
historiographical aim.
Jevertheless, a historical account that involves more varied sources
can e considered more roust than an account that restricts its sources to
a speci$c type. Also, there may e clear violations of the conte*tually
understood completeness re;uirement. 4or e*ample, if 1no-n sources that
-ould e relevant to the historiographical aim ut -hich are not in line
-ith the argument that the historical account -ishes to carry along are
e*cluded, then the selective choices may e considered iased. This -ould
strongly undermine the plausiility of the historical account in ;uestion.
elieve that although they are conte*t8dependent and theory8laden,
evidential considerations such as the ones Oust presented can sometimes
serve as neutral evaluation criteria. At a later point provide an e*ample
for -hat an evaluation in terms of conte*tually determined source
completeness can loo1 li1e.
( β Cople1 criteria. But there are also more comple* considerations that
can e and often are used in the assessment of historical reconstructions.
5omple* criteria are evaluation standards dra-n from deates aout
intricate historiographical issues such as conte*tualism, internalism, and
e*ternalism (are historical events ade;uately conte*tualiedI)?
hermeneutics, understanding, and translation (are the historical actorsF
conceptions and understandings faithfully reconstructed and appropriately
conveyedI)? te*tual interpretation (is the original meaning of the te*t
restoredI)? present8centeredness (are ac1-ards8proOections,
anachronisms and >hig8history avoidedI)? historical e*planation (have the
right causes een identi$ed, has reductionism een avoidedI)? micro8 and
macrohistory (does the account address the correct level of descriptionI)
etc. 5omple* criteria, unli1e asic ones, have the advantage that they are
suOect to e*plicit discussion. They are therefore relatively -ell understood
H2
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
25/38
and usually rendered e*plicit -hen they are used in the evaluation and
critical assessment of a historical reconstruction.3n the do-nside, unli1e asic ones, comple* criteria are not
generally agreed upon or uncontroversial. And disagreement regarding
comple* criteria can arise on at least t-o levels. 4irst, it may not al-ays e
evident -hether a comple* criterion has een met. 4or e*ample, it is not
al-ays evident -hether illegitimate ac1-ards proOections and
anachronisms have een avoided in a given reconstruction, or -hether a
historical account e*hiits e*planatory po-er. But second, and more
importantly, the comple* criteria themselves are contested.4or e*ample, in discussions concerning >hig history and present8
centeredness there is sustantial disagreement regarding theidenti$cation of the e*act vices that result from present8centered
historiography of science. There is also disagreement concerning -hether
all or only some speci$c uses of present8day 1no-ledge and categories in
the interpretation and e*planation of past science are to e avoided
(Ashplant and >ilson %/''? 5unningham %/''? 5unningham and >illiams
%//6? Uardine H). :oreover, it has een suggested that the evaluation
of past 1no-ledge y present8day standards might not al-ays eprolematic (Tosh H6), or at least that it is not as prolematic as other
practices that have come to e criticied under the heading of present8
centeredness, for e*ample, a triumphalist siding -ith the -inners of past
scienti$c deates (5hang H/).Regarding ade;uate levels of analysis and e*planatory po-er, it is
deated -hether the capacity of the historiography of science to provide
comprehensile e*planations depends on micro8perspectives. !oes
historical e*planation need to trace the local and particular causes that
prompt speci$c historical events or can it e concerned -ith large8scale
factors and processes as -ellI (4or a useful discussion of the respective
epistemic capacities of macro8 and microhistorical perspectives see
Pomata %//'). :ore fundamentally, it is not even universally agreed upon
that e*planation, and in particular causal e*planation, should e a central
aim and method in the historiography of science (4or e*ample, the
relevance of causal e*planations in history has recently een denied y
!aston and Lalison H&, 62G6&? for critical discussion see +inel H%H).
H0
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
26/38
Apart from not eing generally agreed upon, the comple* methodological
criteria often are connected -ith theoretical assumptions aout the
character of science, or aout the relations et-een past and present8day
1no-ledge. They are connected -ith sustantial philosophical issues and
hence are seldom neutral -ith regards to philosophical deates. The case is most ovious -ith methodological deates concerning
ade;uate conte*tualiation. 5learly, in the dispute et-een 5ollins and
4ran1lin, ;uestions regarding the method of ade;uate conte*tualiation
are intimately related to -hat is ultimately at sta1e in the con=ict et-een
them" the social nature of scienti$c decision8ma1ing. The other comple*
criteria are philosophically laden in a similar manner. :ethodological
deates over anachronism and >hig8history are related to philosophical
;uestions regarding continuity and discontinuity in the history of science,
scienti$c change and progress. 5onsiderations regarding e*planation and
understanding in history carry over into philosophical issues concerning
the relations et-een reasons and causes, scienti$c rationality, and the
driving forces of theory change. And to the degree that the comple*
criteria are not independent of philosophical positions and claims, they
should also not e e*pected to e neutral -ith regards to the theoretical
issues at sta1e in con=icts et-een rival historical reconstructions. >hen
-e are relying on a comple* criterion in order to decide et-een
con=icting historical accounts, -e cannot al-ays e sure that -e are not
already assuming a point at sta1e in the deate. n some cases, the failure
of a historical account to satisfy a certain comple* criterion may e more
indicative of that same criterion eing de$ned in a philosophically invested
manner, rather than of a neutrally assessale =a- of the account in
;uestion.
%. Constraints on Pluralism
aving distinguished et-een asic and comple* criteria, -ant to return
to the four historical case studies analyed earlier in order to evaluate ho-
-ell they fare -ith respect to the neutral evaluation criteria -e introduced.
n this analysis, see1 to sustantiate t-o claims. 4irst, asic evaluation
criteria reduce the space of permissile alternatives and hence restrict
H9
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
27/38
pluralism. But second, the verdicts that -e can reach on their asis are
relatively -ea1, and in order to reach a more de$nite decision, -e -ould
have to refer to comple* criteria. egin -ith applying the asic evaluation criterion of internal
consistency to the competing historical accounts of the 5hemical
Revolution. The criterion of internal consistency restricts the space of
permissile alternatives, ecause, of the t-o case studies have
discussed, only one meets its standard. :usgraveFs account fails the
consistency re;uirement. t involves a straightfor-ard contradiction in its
central factual claims. This contradiction emerges as follo-s" At the end of
the historical narrative, and after having given his presentation of the
historical development of the t-o competing research programs, :usgrave
passes the follo-ing verdict on them"
Bet-een %&& and %&'0 the o*ygen programme clearly
demonstrated its superiority to phlogistonism" it developed
coherently and each ne- version -as theoretically and
empirically progressive, -hereas after %&& the phlogiston
programme did neither.(:usgrave %/&9, H0)
This verdict is indispensale for assessing the aandonment of phlogiston8
ased theories as rationally -arranted. And yet, this verdict does not
accord -ith claims made earlier in the historical reconstruction. n
particular, :usgrave had claimed that in %&&0 e*periments spo1e as
much against @avoisier as they did in his favor (iid., %/9), and that in
%&'6 Priestley -as having great predictive success -ith his phlogiston
theory (iid., %//). f these claims are correct, :usgraveFs statement thatafter %&& the phlogiston theory -as starting to degenerate -hile the
o*ygen theory -as progressing cannot e right. The historical facts he
cites contradict his interpretation of the situation in terms of progressing
and degenerating research programs. The claim that the choice for o*ygen
-as rational y @a1atosian standards appears ill8grounded. 5hangFs
account is less prolematic in this respect. At least, it does not involve
historical claims -hich directly contradict each other and hence it passes
the asic criterion of internal consistency. Applying the asic criterion of
H&
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
28/38
internal consistency to the con=icting reconstructions leads to the
e*clusion of :usgraveFs case study and hence restricts historiographical
pluralism.n the dispute et-een 5ollins and 4ran1lin, evidential
considerations ecome crucial. As mentioned aove, the t-o authors dra-
on diEerent types of sources. 5ollins goes eyond the pulished sources to
also include e*tensive intervie-s -ith the scientists involved in the
episode under consideration. n fact, in the presentation of his historical
account intervie- e*cerpts are much more prominent than pulished
material, since the interpretations and arguments surrounding the
gravitational radiation e*periments are primarily reconstructed on this
asis. The consideration ehind this strategy is that of circumventing
pulication ias and gaining insight into the reasoning processes of
scientists efore they are straightened to $t the format of a scienti$c
Oournal. 5ollins e*plicitly criticies 4ran1lin for only dra-ing on the
pulished record. According to 5ollins, the restriction to scienti$c
pulications only is simply ad historiographical practice (5ollins %//2,
2/&G//). s 4ran1linFs decision to cover only the pulished sources indeed
as prolematic as 5ollinsF suggestsI !oes 4ran1lin fail the asic standards
of completeness and variance of the evidenceI thin1 he does, although the situation is comple* ecause of the
theory8laden character of source selection. The main prolem -ith
4ran1linFs account is that it e*cludes a -hole class of 1no-n sources -hich
-ould in principle e relevant to the historical argument at sta1e. The
restriction on pulished sources cannot e Ousti$ed on the asis that they
-ere the only ones availale. 3n the contrary, the original account that4ran1lin -ishes to disprove includes unpulished material. This means that
4ran1lin dra-s on a suset of the types of sources used in the original
account. o- a less complete consideration of e*isting sources could e
etter suited for representing the actual process of scienti$c decision8
ma1ing remains unclear and -e should at least e s1eptical -hether
4ran1linFs account passes the completeness re;uirement. o-ever,
4ran1lin Ousti$es his restriction on source material y contending that the
arguments that scientists themselves $nd to e the most convincing, the
H'
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
29/38
strongest reasons that they had for accepting or reOecting certain $ndings,
are most li1ely to e found in the pulications. According to 4ran1lin, the
pulications display those reasons that scientists eerFs
oservation claim. To regard the restriction as legitimate in light of this
aim, one -ould have to suscrie to the thesis that pulished results are
the est indicators of the rational reasoning processes that rought them
aout, and that they are etter e;uipped for this tas1 than other types of
sources, such as intervie-s, unpulished manuscripts, letters and
noteoo1s. This assumption is almost universally reOected in the historiography
of science. But perhaps more -orryingly for 4ran1lin, he himself does notconsistently uphold the methodological principle of primarily dra-ing on
the pulished record. 4or e*ample, in his case study of :illi1anFs oil drop
e*periments 4ran1lin engages in great detail -ith :illi1anFs noteoo1s in
order to interpret the formerFs e*perimental Oudgments as rationally
Ousti$ed (4ran1lin %/'9, %2G%0&). This ma1es the choice of sources for his
reconstruction of the early gravitational -aves episode seem aritrary,
rather than methodologically Ousti$ed. Argualy, 5ollinsF account faresetter in this respect. 3ne may point out though that, although 5ollinsF
sources are more varied than 4ran1linFs, they are still not roust enough,
since the strong emphasis on intervie-s is not suciently alanced -ith
other types of source material. n the con=ict et-een 4ran1lin and
5ollinsF, neutral evaluation criteria favor 5ollinsF reconstruction, ut they
do so only y a thin margin. This is -here turn to my second claim. Jeutral criteria can decide
some historiographical con=icts, ut the decisions they yield are relatively
H/
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
30/38
-ea1. A stronger decision could only e reached y dra-ing on some of
the comple* evaluation criteria. There are t-o reasons -hy asic criteria are -ea1 ariters. 4irst,
they are only necessary ut not sucient for a historical account to e
plausile. Therefore they act only as constraints on the space of
alternatives, ut do not single out one account as the correct or most
plausile one. To illustrate this point, let us return to the dispute et-een
:usgrave and 5hang. The application of the internal consistency criterion
e*cludes :usgraveFs account from the range of legitimate historical
reconstructions. But of course, this does not turn 5hangFs account into the
one une;uivocally correct representation of -hat happened in the
5hemical Revolution. 3n the one hand, internal consistency is not the only
evaluation criterion -e can dra- upon and there may e many reasons to
e critical of 5hangFs reconstruction that have nothing to do -ith -hether
it is internally consistent or not (for t-o recent criticisms of 5hangFs
account see Blumenthal H%6? +usch forthcoming). 3n the other hand,
have only considered t-o of the many diEerent and possily con=icting
reconstructions of the 5hemical Revolution. There e*ist myriad alternative
retellings of that episode (a comprehensive overvie- of the past 0 years
of historical -riting aout the 5hemical Revolution can e found in :cKvoy
H%), and even -ithout having analyed them in detail, contend that at
least some of them -ill meet the asic criteria. These criteria restrict the
space of possile alternatives, ut they do not shrin1 it do-n so radically
that it -ould only include one permissile account. Kven after having
applied them, there is still room for historiographical pluralism.
The second reason -hy the asic criteria are -ea1 is that they serveto evaluate only speci$c case studies, ut not more general principles of
reconstruction, interpretation and narrative emplotment. >hile :usgraveFs
case study has een reOected on grounds of inconsistency, the :usgrave8
type of historical analysis has not. nternal consistency is not endemic to a
speci$c type of historical analysis. 5ould one not tell the story of the
5hemical Revolution in a similar manner as :usgrave does, y
reconstructing the diachronic development of phlogistonism and
o*ygenism as competing research programs and y emplotting historical
6
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
31/38
events in a comic form, ut -ithout repeating his mista1eI >e may not e
ale to e*press -ith :usgraveFs vigor the conclusion that after %&& the
o*ygen8ased program -as clearly superior. But -e could proaly still tell
the story of the success of the o*ygen program as one in -hich scienti$c
rationality prevailed through comple* plot t-ists.3r thin1 aout the deate et-een 5ollins and 4ran1lin. >e have
seen that 4ran1linFs reconstruction fails ecause the evidence he adduces
is insucient. o-ever, -hen analyed the methodological diEerences
et-een the t-o accounts, argued that the most important diEerences
do not concern the mere choices of sources, ut rather, ho- historical
facts are derived from these sources. sho-ed that 5ollins arranges and
interprets his sources in such a -ay as to highlight disagreement and
open8endedness, -hereas 4ran1lin reconstructs from his sources a
historical situation of agreement and roust negative evidence. The fact
that the set of covered sources is not e*actly coe*tensive in 5ollinsF and
4ran1linFs reconstructions very li1ely facilitates them reaching diverging
reconstructions and interpretations. o-ever, is it not at least possile
that such diverging reconstructions and interpretations could e reached
even if the same sources -ere usedI :aye 4ran1lin -ould have served
his point etter had he chosen the same sources as 5ollins, yet interpreted
them according to his o-n methodological principles. The same seems to
e true for narrative structure. >hether the story of the early searches for
gravitational radiation is an inverted adventure story in -hich negative
evidence piles up or -hether it is a discontinuous tragedy does not seem
to e completely determined y the availale sources. >e need to at least
consider the possiility that 4ran1lin could have told his adventure story on
the asis of the same sources that -ere also used y 5ollins. istorians do
enOoy some degree of freedom -hen it comes to choosing their
methodological strategies and forms of narrative emplotment. The asic
evaluation criteria help to identify the =a-s in speci$c historical
reconstructions. But they are not strong enough to rule out, on a more
general level, speci$c methods of interpretation or forms of emplotment as
clearly illegitimate.
6%
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
32/38
n comparison, the comple* criteria are signi$cantly stronger as
ariters. 4irst, considerations regarding methodological principles, such as
conte*tualiation, e*planation and present8centeredness can restrict the
space of permissile alternatives much more radically than asic criteria
do. The set of historical accounts of the same episode that are internally
consistent and that handle the 1no-n evidence in a satisfying manner -ill
argualy e much larger than the set of historical accounts that, in
addition to satisfying the asic criteria, are also appropriately
conte*tualied (according to a speci$c understanding of relevant
conte*ts), e*hiit e*planatory po-er (according to a speci$c criterion of
e*planatory po-er), avoid anachronisms (according to a speci$c de$nition
of anachronism), etc.Second, if -e restrict the range of permissile methodological
principles, -e have ipso facto restricted the range of permissile types of
historical reconstruction, not Oust the set of actually e*isting acceptale
case studies. f -e can sho- that the fault -ith 4ran1linFs reconstruction
goes eyond his handling of the sources, and that it lies in ho- he uses
present8day 1no-ledge in the interpretation and evaluation of >eerFs
arguments, then -e have not only e*cluded 4ran1linFs particular historical
case study, ut any historical reconstruction that dra-s on similar
reconstructive and interpretative principles. f -e can sho- that there is
something -rong -ith the practice of rational reconstruction in :usgraveFs
account, then -e have not only e*cluded this particular case study, ut
any account of the 5hemical Revolution that dra-s on a @a1atosian
conception of scienti$c rationality.
ence, the comple* methodological evaluation criteria aresigni$cantly stronger than the asic ones. But applying them rings us into
the center of sustantial philosophical con=icts aout the nature of
science, the relation et-een past and present 1no-ledge, scienti$c
rationality, theory change and progress. The comple* criteria are strong,
ut they are highly controversial and anything ut neutral -ith regards to
philosophical con=icts.
Conclusion
6H
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
33/38
There appears to e a dilemma -hen it comes to evaluating historical
reconstructions. 3n the one hand, there are asic evaluation criteria such
as source8reliaility, range of the evidence cited and internal consistency.
These criteria are relatively neutral -ith regards to higher8level theoretical
and philosophical con=icts. o-ever, these neutral evaluation criteria are
not very strong. They restrict pluralism ut only to a relatively lo- degree.
3n the other hand, there are comple* evaluation criteria that are stronger
than the asic ones and restrict pluralism more radically. But the comple*
criteria are themselves contested and are seldom neutral -ith regards to
the fundamental issues that are at sta1e in a con=ict et-een diEerent
historical reconstructions. Put in a nutshell" neutral criteria are -ea1,
strong criteria are not neutral. This implies that -e -ill have to live -ith some degree of pluralism
in historiography, at least if -e -ish our decisions et-een competing
historical accounts to e grounded in neutral criteria that are shared y
everyone -ho participates in the deate. This pluralism -ill e limited
ecause there are at least some neutral considerations that can serve to
e*clude unacceptale historical accounts. o-ever, even after the clearly
illegitimate historical reconstructions that do not meet the asic criteria
have een e*cluded, there can still e plural historical reconstructions of
the same historical episodes that support diEerent philosophical doctrines.3f course, -e may not -ish to remain neutral in our evaluations of
historical reconstructions. A convinced social constructivist may -ell $nd
duious the methodological principles that 4ran1lin employs, the
interpretations he reaches, as -ell as his narrative strategies. The
constructivist may -ish to reOect 4ran1linFs historical account on the asisthat it is internalist and present8centered and hence fails those comple*
methodological criteria that call for a more thorough conte*tualiation and
historiciation of scienti$c deates. But in doing so, the constructivist has
assumed some of the points at issue, namely that a reconstruction of the
deate in terms of its technical contents only is de$cient and that past
eliefs should not e evaluated y present8day standards. The
constructivist may have good reasons for holding these vie-s, ut a
decision et-een con=icting case studies that is ased on them is not a
66
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
34/38
neutral decision. :oiliing comple* criteria in con=icts et-een historical
accounts reinforces historiographical pluralism rather than eradicating it.
62
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
35/38
&eferences
Ashplant, T. L., and Adrian >ilson. %/''. higgish (Aout Phlogiston).DCentaurus 0% (2)" H6/G92.
XXX. H%H. &s $ater H>:? %vidence, Realis and Pluralis. BostonStudies in the Philosophy of Science. !ordrecht et al." Springer.
5ollins, arry :. %//2.
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
36/38
!aston, @orraine, and Peter Lalison. H&. :b5ectivity . Je- 7or1" YoneBoo1s.
4eldhay, Riv1a. %//2. riting. The5ase of the Scienti$c Revolution.D Science in Conte1t & (%)" &GH2.
4ran1lin, Allan. %/'9. The "eglect of %1perient . 5amridge" 5amridgeNniversity Press.
XXX. %//2.
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
37/38
@inderg, !avid 5. %//. hite, ayden. %/&6. 7etahistory. The Historical &agination in"ineteenth!Century %urope. Baltimore, @ondon" Uohn op1ins NniversityPress.
6&
-
8/18/2019 Pluralism in Historiography a Case Study
38/38
XXX. %/&'.