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.

A Historiographical Analysis of Mertoffs Doctoral Dissertation

Merton's Thesis for the Doctorate: Establishment of collective biography method and content analytical method

A Positivist Analysis on Master’s Dissertation of Educational Technology in Our Country

Thinking on Methodology in Culture History of Literature in Tang Dynasty

[Merton and medical sociology]

What Are the Social Studies of Science?

A Review on Post-Merton Sociology of Science

Historical Origin of Merton′s Early Work and 'Hessen Thesis'

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

Historical Account of Science: on Pickering's Critical Historiography and Its Dispute

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

Science Studies and Sociology

Robert Merton: Occupational Roles, Social Status and Health Inequalities

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

The Rational and Sociological Reconstructions of History of Science

From "historicism" to "Constructivism"

Attention on Contemporary Issues: Reviewing Studies of the History of Science in China Since 2000

Historical Study Is the Scientific Foundation of Marx's Theoretical Contribution

WANG Ming-Sheng's Contribution to the Transition of Chinese History Science in Modern Time

An Analysis of Holton's Method of Thematic Analysis

The History of Knowledge and the Future of Knowledge Societies