Kuhn And The Genesis Of The New Historiography Of Science"."

dc.creatorde Oliveira, J C Pinto
dc.date2012-Mar
dc.date2015-11-27T13:28:27Z
dc.date2015-11-27T13:28:27Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-29T01:15:14Z
dc.date.available2018-03-29T01:15:14Z
dc.identifierStudies In History And Philosophy Of Science. v. 43, n. 1, p. 115-21, 2012-Mar.
dc.identifier0039-3681
dc.identifier
dc.identifierhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22530485
dc.identifierhttp://repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/199975
dc.identifier22530485
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/1300208
dc.descriptionIn this paper I identify a tension between the two sets of works by Kuhn regarding the genesis of the new historiography of science. In the first, it could be said that the change from the traditional to the new historiography is strictly endogenous (referring to internal causes or reasons). In the second, the change is predominantly exogenous. To address this question, I draw on a text that is considered to be less important among Kuhn's works, but which, as shall be argued, allows some contact between Kuhn's two approaches via Koyré. I seek to point out and differentiate the roles of Koyré and Kuhn--from Kuhn's point of view--in the development of the historiography of science and, as a complement, present some reflections regarding the justification of the new historiography.
dc.description43
dc.description115-21
dc.languageeng
dc.relationStudies In History And Philosophy Of Science
dc.relationStud Hist Philos Sci
dc.rightsfechado
dc.rights
dc.sourcePubMed
dc.subjectGreat Britain
dc.subjectHistoriography
dc.subjectHistory, 20th Century
dc.subjectPhilosophy
dc.subjectScience
dc.subjectState Medicine
dc.titleKuhn And The Genesis Of The New Historiography Of Science"."
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución