Abstract:Historians of science have taken leave of finalism. No longer do they write teleological histories of scientific progress. Instead of a grand narrative on the triumph of science they now tend to write small stories on local knowledge. This is the result of several decades of criticism of Whig history. Starting with neo-marxist critique in the interwar years, enhanced in the social history of the 1970s, science was seen as an economic commodity and as a social product. Cultural history and anthropology added the view that scientists and scholars are mere mortals, muddling through messy life. This critique was topped off with postmodern criticism of knowledge as power, which translates into the accusation that historiography is only legitimating cultural and political oppression. To counter these allegations, many historians have insulated themselves into a kind of retro-historicism that shies away from any teleology, coherence, meaning and evaluation. It depicts the production of knowledge as a practical, local activity that is strictly limited to its cultural context. No claims to truth, validity, let alone progress or even development were allowed. This situation of rampant relativism could not last. Total abstinence of any evaluation of knowledge claims, quality of research or success of theories has proven unsatisfactory. The need has arisen to study broader issues of traveling knowledge and longer lines of scientific development. There is a shift of interest into traditions of knowledge that spring the bonds of locality and context. Why do some scientific theories and research practices succeed in surpassing paradigms and bridging epistemic ruptures? In this respect disciplines are in the process of being rehabilitated. Instead of oppressive structures they become the vehicles of sustained knowledge growth. Especially the role of education and academic training is focused on. Facing up to the charges of conceptual anachronism, historians of knowledge now opt for a cautiously evaluative history. The alternative would be an intellectually barren historicism.

"Local Knowledge" and Cultural Relativism in the Study of History of Science

History of Science, Anthropology and "Cross- Culture Comparative Study"

On Two Kind of "Local Knowledge"——Furthermore A Review of Viewpoints from Geertz and Rouse

What Are the Social Studies of Science?

Thinking on Methodology in Culture History of Literature in Tang Dynasty

A study on the relationship among organizational cultures,knowledge management strategies,and performance

[From relativism to evaluation. Recent trends in the historiography of science and the humanities]

How Can We Understand Ancient Societies the in History of Science?——“New History of Science” and “Cross-culture” of G.E.R.Lloyd and Its Revelation

On the Differences between Sociology of Science and Anthropology of Science and Related Revelation

A Global Perspective of the Independence of Social Sciences in China

Relativism,Narrativism and the Question of Objectivity in History

How Does the Local Knowledge of Scientists Influence Their Impact on Governance Performance?

The Future of The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge From the Refutation of the Relativism to the Path of the Normal Struture in Science

Contextualism in Current Science and Technology Studies

Relativists at 30,000 Feet——On the Compatibility Between Relativism and the Validity of Science

Postcolonialism, Feminism and the Study of Chinese History of Science:Some Theoretical Possibilities in Historiography

The Significance and Value of Introducing Anthropological Perspectives into the Study of History

The Global Dimension and the Local Dimension of the Science and Technology Knowledge——Towards Postcolonial Technoscience Research

Historical Reason and the Sense of History

The Ecological Value of Local Knowledge

Kuhn, Relativism and SSK