Examination of Boris Hessen’s and Clifford D. Conner’s Approaches to The History of Science

Abstract

In this study, Boris Hessen's and Clifford D. Conner's approaches to the history of science will be examined. Both of them expose the deficiencies in narrating the history of science using the “heroes”. Hessen claims that Newton and his piece of work which is the top point of scientific revolution is obviously the product of the social, economical and technological environment of his time, and he deals with the scientific activities of 16. and 17. centuries using an “externalist” method. In this sense, he was one of the scientific historians who start the debates over “externalism” against “internalism” which lasted during the 20th century in the discipline of history of science. When it comes to Conner, he indicates that the craftspersons and professional groups own the main share in the development of science. According to both writers, technology comes before the science. In this study, after summarizing the related concepts about the discipline of history of science from the historical perspective, the stimulating results of Hessen's approach to the history of science will be demonstrated. Although mentioned approach contains analysis of and explanations of scientific progress; the view that looks to the history of science as the defensive area of metanarrative Marxist theory, will be criticized. Likewise, it will be demonstrated that while Conner stands against the “great man” theory, he also puts another excessive interpretation which can be defined as “great mass” theory. The reasons of his excessive reductive interpretations will be argued.