Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T09:48:19.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Fallible or inerrant? A belated review of the ‘constructivist's bible’ Jan Golinski, Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History of Science. Cambridge History of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Pp. xiv+236. ISBN 0-521-44913-8. £15.95 (paperback).

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2004

M. D. Eddy
Affiliation:
Dibner Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Abstract

When Jan Golinski's Making Natural Knowledge was published in 1998 it was generally applauded for its ecumenical stance between the empirical ‘art’ of historians and the theoretical focus of the social sciences. Indeed, such a middling position was a unique approach to be taken in wake of the ‘science wars’ and this, in combination with the book's clear organization and (for the most part) forthright prose, quickly earned it a place upon HPS, STS and SSK postgraduate reading lists. Now, five years since its first edition was published (hardback, 1998), the work has become a standard introduction to historically minded scholars interested in the constructivist programme. In fact, it has been called the ‘constructivist's bible’ in many a conference corridor. Since the book has attained such a status (and since it has not been reviewed in the BJHS), it is perhaps worth reflecting on whether or not such canonical text (to use a biblical analogy) is fallible or inerrant – especially in relation to its content and pedagogical efficacy.

Type
Review Article
Copyright
2004 British Society for the History of Science

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)