Which Hermeneutical Method Is Suggested by the New Historiography of Science

  • Antonino Drago
Keywords: New historiography, Heelan, hermeneutics, Two dichotomies


Whereas “Science does not think" (Heidegger), the "new historiography of science" - mainly Koyré's and Kuhn's ones - has addressed our minds to think about science in a new way. Recently Heelan suggested taking this new viewpoint for conceiving hermeneutic method in a more adequate way to present scientific practice. By an interpretative analysis of the categories of the above two historians, the present paper suggests a new way to conceive the foundations of science. Two basic dichotomies result: on the kind of logic and on the kind of mathematics. They generate four models of scientific theory, sharply severed by the radical differences in their respective choices; that offers an accurate definition of incommensurability and even of an alternative scientific theory to a dominant one, which can be properly called a paradigm. In the past hermeneutic scholars gave negative appraisals on Western science; according to the new viewpoint recognising pluralism in the foundations of science, these appraisals concern the dominant paradigm only. In the light of the basic dichotomies a new way to define hermeneutics is suggested; it can be qualified in short by the following words: ‘The understanding of science is the science of understanding’.


Download data is not yet available.


Birkhoff, D., Von Neumann, J. (1936). The Logic of Quantum Mechan-ics. Annals of Math. 37(4): 823–843.
Bishop, E. (1967). Foundations of Constructive Mathematics: New York: Mc Graw-Hill.
Cerreta, P., Drago A. (1987). La “Weltbild” di Planck reinterpretata col paradigma di Kuhn e col modello di teoria scientifica. In F. Bevilacqua (ed.), Atti VIII Congr. Naz. St. Fisica. Pavia: La Goliardica, 63–80.
Carnot, L. (1813). Réflexions sur la metaphysique du calcul infi-nitesimal. Paris: Courcier, 217–253.
Drago A. (1986). Una definizione precisa di incommensurabilità delle teorie scientifiche. In F. Bevilacqua (ed.), Atti VII Congr. Naz. Storia Fisica. Pavia: La Goliardica, 124–129.
Drago, A. (1987). An effective definition of incommensurability. Comm. to VIII Congress on Logic, Methodology and Phil. Sci., Mos-cow, 4, pt. 1: 159–162.
Drago, A. (1988). An effective definition of incommensurability. In C. Cellucci et alii (eds.). Temi e prospettive della logica e della filosofia della scienza contemporanea. CLUEB, 2: 117–120.
Drago, A. (1993a). Is Goedel’s incompleteness theorem a conse-quence of the two kinds of organization of a scientific theory? In Z.W.K. Wolkowsky (ed.), First International Symposium on Goedel’s Theorems. London: World Scientific, 107–135.
Drago, A. (1993b) The principle of virtual works as a source of two traditions in 18th Century Mechanics. In F. Bevilacqua (ed.), History of Physics in Europe in 19th and 20th Centuries. Bologna: SIF, 69–80.
Drago, A. (1994). The modern fulfilment of Leibniz’ program for a Scientia generalis. In H. Breger (ed.), VI Int. Kongress: Leibniz und Europa, Hannover, 185–195.
Drago, A. (1995). Koyré, Kuhn and beyond. 10th Logic, Meth. Phil. Sci., Florence, p. 320 (abstract).
Drago, A. (1996). Poincaré vs. Peano and Hilbert about the mathe-matical principle of induction. In J.-L. Greffe, G. Heinzmann, K. Lorenz (eds.), Henri Poincaré. Science et Philosophie. Paris: Blanchard / Ber-lin: Springer, 513–527.
Drago, A. (1997). Cycle and Symmetry in the Hermeneutical Inter-pretation of Science. Metalogicon, 10(1) : 13–25.
Drago, A. (1999a). Incommensurability as a Bound of Hermeneutics in Science. In M. Féher, L. Ropolyi, O. Kiss (eds.), Hermeneutics and Science. Kluwer Acad. P., 135–155.
Drago, A. (1999b). La geometria adeguata alla teoria astronomica: il “convenzionalismo” di Poincaré. In G. Proverbio (ed.), Atti del Conv. Naz di Storia dell’Astronomia, Napoli, 1997.
Drago, A. (2001). The several categories suggested for the new his-toriography of science: An interpretative analysis from a foundational viewpoint. Epistemologia 24: 48–82.
Drago, A. (2013). The emergence of two options from Einstein’s first paper on Quanta. In R. Pisano, D. Capecchi, A. Lukesova (eds.), Physics, Astronomy and Engineering. Critical Problems in the History of Science and Society. Siauliai: Scientia Socialis P., 227–234.
Drago, A., Manno, S.D. (1989). Le ipotesi fondamentali della meccani-ca secondo Lazare Carnot. Epistemologia, 12: 305–330
Dummett, M. (1975). Elements of Intuitionism. Oxfrod: Claredon, 1977.
Giedymin, J. (1991). Geometrical and physical conventionalism of Poincaré in epistemological formulation. Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 22(1): 1–22.
Heelan, P.A. (1982). Hermeneutical Realism and scientific observation. In P.D. Asquith and T. Nickles (eds.), Philosophy of Science Associa-tion 1982. Michigan U.P.: PSA; vol. 1, 77–87.
Heelan, P.A. (1998). The Scope of Hermeneutics in Natural Science. Hist. St. Hist. Sci. 29(2): 273–298.
Heelan, P.A., Schulkin J. (1998) Hermeneutical philosophy and prag-matism: A philosophy of science. Synthèse, 115: 269–302.
Heidegger, M. (1953). Sein und Zeit. Tuebingen: Niemeyer, VII ed.
Hintikka, J. (1996). Principles of Mathematics Revisited. Oxford: Ox-ford U.P.
Husserl, E. (1954). Die Krisis. L’Aia: Nijhoff.
Klein, M.J. (1967). Thermodynamics in Einstein’s Thought. Science, 57: 505–516
Koyré, A. (1939). Études Galiléennes. Paris: Hermann, 1966.
Koyré, A. (1957). From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Kuhn, T.S. (1969). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago U. P.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970). Reply to my critics. In I. Lakatos, A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (1970), 313–364.
Kuhn, T.S. (1977). The Essential Tension. Chicago: Chicago U.P.
Lakatos, I. (1976). Philosophical Papers. Oxford: Oxford U.P., vol. 1.
Lakatos, I., Musgrave, A. (eds.) (1970). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.
Mastermann, M. (1970). The nature of paradigm. In I. Lakatos, A. Musgrave (1970), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, op. cit., 58–89.
Miller, A.I. (1981). Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. Ad-dison-Wesley, 123–142.
Naughton, R. (1982). Revolution in Science. The New Scientist, 95: 3702–3705.
Poincaré, H. (1905). La valeur de la Science. Paris: Flammarion.
Prawitz, D. (1977). Meaning and Proof. Theoria 43(1): 6–39.
Thackray, A. (1970). Atoms and Powers. Harvard: Cambridge.
Troelstra, A., van Dalen, D. (1988). Constructivism in Mathematics. An Introduction. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
How to Cite
Drago, A. (2023). Which Hermeneutical Method Is Suggested by the New Historiography of Science. Critical Hermeneutics, 6(2), 267-295. https://doi.org/10.13125/CH/5418