Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSommer, Andreasen
dc.date.accessioned2015-11-23T12:41:18Z
dc.date.available2015-11-23T12:41:18Z
dc.date.issued2014-09-16en
dc.identifier.citationStudies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 2014, 48(A): 38–45. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2014.08.004en
dc.identifier.issn1369-8486
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/252701
dc.description.abstractAs a prelude to articles published in this special issue, I sketch changing historiographical conventions regarding the ‘occult’ in recent history of science and medicine scholarship. Next, a review of standard claims regarding psychical research and parapsychology in philosophical discussions of the demarcation problem reveals that these have tended to disregard basic primary sources and instead rely heavily on problematic popular accounts, simplistic notions of scientific practice, and outdated teleological historiographies of progress. I conclude by suggesting that rigorous and sensitively contextualized case studies of past elite heterodox scientists may be potentially useful to enrich historical and philosophical scholarship by highlighting epistemologies that have fallen through the crude meshes of triumphalist and postmodernist historiographical generalizations alike.
dc.description.sponsorshipResearch for this essay was funded by a Wellcome Trust (grant no. 089723/Z/09/Z) medical humanities doctoral studentship. Cedar Creek Institute, Charlottesville, VA, and the Perrott-Warrick Fund at Trinity College, Cambridge, have kindly supported the writing up of this article.
dc.languageEnglishen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 UK: England & Wales*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/uk/*
dc.subjectHistoriographyen
dc.subjectPsychical researchen
dc.subjectParapsychologyen
dc.subjectDemarcation problemen
dc.subjectPopular scienceen
dc.titlePsychical research in the history and philosophy of science. An introduction and reviewen
dc.typeArticle
dc.description.versionThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Elsevier via http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2014.08.004en
prism.endingPage45
prism.publicationDate2014en
prism.publicationNameStudies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciencesen
prism.startingPage38
prism.volume48en
dc.rioxxterms.funderWellcome Trust
dc.rioxxterms.projectid089723/Z/09/Z
dcterms.dateAccepted2014-08-14en
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1016/j.shpsc.2014.08.004en
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserveden
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2014-09-16en
dc.identifier.eissn1879-2499
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen
rioxxterms.freetoread.startdate2017-09-16


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 UK: England & Wales
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 UK: England & Wales