Experimental History of Science

Experimental philosophers interested in science might want to pay attention to the growth of the experimental history of science.  In substance, experimental historians of science reproduce the experiments described in important scientific events, for instance Galileo’s experiments. 

The motivations for endorsing an experiment approach to the history of science vary, just like the motivations for endorsing an experimental approach to philosophy. These motivations range from debunking some well-known experiments to justifying the accounts of these experiments to better understanding these accounts and the important scientific texts.

My colleague Paolo Palmieri (Pittsburgh, HPS) and some of his students are currently involved in developing this field, with a particular emphasis on Galileo. Here is how Paolo puts his project:

"I am starting a research program with the objective of establishing the foundations for a totally new approach to the history of science. I call this new approach “experimental history of science”. Experimental history of science consists in re-creating as faithfully as possible the experimental apparatus of landmark experiments in the history of science, and in re-performing the experiments especially when we know little about the details of the original setups, a fact which has been a consistent source of   sterile disagreement between scholars. In this way I am convinced that we  will cast new light on crucial scientific events."

You can see a few pics of the pendulum experiment here.

Paolo is not alone in highlighting the importance of an experimental approach to the history of science. The psychologist Ryan Tweeney has also replicated some  of Faraday's experiments.

Comments

[Anonymous]

While the project of "Experimental History of Science" is surely worthwhile, Paolo Palmieri's claim to establish the foundation of a "totally new approach to the history of science" is surely disingenuous. Tom Settle had replicated many of Galileo's experiments back in the 60s and 70s, and similar work had been done on other early scientists/philosophers.

I'd be interested in some empirical evidence regarding whether calling an intellectual movement "totally new" helps its cause.

[Edouard Machery]

I don't want to speak for Paolo, but I'd like to note two points:

1. Paolo is right that an experimental approach to the history of science is extremely uncommon among historians of science, though not unprecendented.

2. Paolo is of course aware of the previous experimental replications of Galileo's experiments. Geez, he is a Galileo scholar! However, he has numerous qualms with these replications.

[Eric Schwitzgebel]

I'd love to get hold of some of E.B. Titchener's apparatus (described especially in his 1901-1905 Experimental Psychology: A Laboratory Manual) and try to replicate some of the old introspective psychology experiments. I have this fantasy that some of it is still in a basement in Cornell somewhere....