History and philosophy of science in George Sartons work
George Sarton has always been remembered as one of those responsible for the institutionalization of the History of Science discipline. Until the early 60’s criticism was extremely favorable and flattering, giving way to restrictive considerations that stress the absence of a philosophical and analy...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2016 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Recursos: | Sociedade Brasileira de História da Ciência (SBHC) |
| Repositorio: | Revista Brasileira de História da Ciência (Online) |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ojs.rbhciencia.emnuvens.com.br:article/158 |
| Acesso em linha: | https://rbhciencia.emnuvens.com.br/revista/article/view/158 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palavra-chave: | história da ciência nova historiografia Sarton Kuhn history of science new historiography |
| Resumo: | George Sarton has always been remembered as one of those responsible for the institutionalization of the History of Science discipline. Until the early 60’s criticism was extremely favorable and flattering, giving way to restrictive considerations that stress the absence of a philosophical and analytical approach in his writings. These restrictions are intensified under the new historiography of science, as announced by Thomas Kuhn. This paper reflects on the considerations of some of Sarton’s interpreters and intends to analyze his great project towards the creation of the discipline of History of Science. In doing so, it tries to show how such criticisms reveal the change that occurred in the history of science as well as evoke the necessity of reviewing his role in the constitution of such discipline. |
|---|