We have located links that may give you full text access.
Motives and merits of counterfactual histories of science.
I consider the motives of historians devising counterfactual histories, analyze the narrative structure of these histories, and assess their merits. Richard Evans attacked counterfactual histories as motivated by wishful thinking. And he claimed that they could not contribute anything to the understanding of the past because they are concerned "with pointing out supposedly preferable alternatives." Both claims can be refuted with two particular counterfactual histories of biology. An analysis of the narrative structure of counterfactual histories suggests objective criteria that can distinguish those that have been designed, in order to reach a certain narrative ending, from those that were open-ended at the beginning. These criteria are then applied to two examples from the history of biology: Bowler's Darwin Deleted and Radick's 'Other Histories, Other Biologies.' Radick did not determine his counterfactual in advance, to meet a certain narrative ending. This refutes the first claim (wishful thinking). Bowler self-avowedly did design his counterfactual in advance, but its narrative ending still contributes to understanding. In particular, it shows that the idea of natural selection is not necessarily associated with its social discontents. This refutes the second claim (cannot contribute to understanding).
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app