Abstract
The history of mathematics is nowadays practiced primarily by professional histo-
rians rather than mathematicians, as was the norm a few decades ago. There is
a strong consensus among these historians that the old-fashioned style of history
is \obsolete," and that \the gains in historical understanding are incomparably
greater" in the more \historically sensitive" works of today. I maintain that
this self-congratulatory attitude is ill-founded, and that the alleged superiority of
modern historiographical standards ultimately rests on a dubious redenition of
the purpose of history rather than intrinsic merit.
rians rather than mathematicians, as was the norm a few decades ago. There is
a strong consensus among these historians that the old-fashioned style of history
is \obsolete," and that \the gains in historical understanding are incomparably
greater" in the more \historically sensitive" works of today. I maintain that
this self-congratulatory attitude is ill-founded, and that the alleged superiority of
modern historiographical standards ultimately rests on a dubious redenition of
the purpose of history rather than intrinsic merit.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 113–123 |
| Journal | Journal of humanistic mathematics |
| Volume | 4 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Publication status | Published - 2014 |