Skip to main content
History

Return to Question

Tweeted twitter.com/StackHistory/status/729854711973711873
deleted 77 characters in body
Source Link
MCW ♦
MCW ♦
  • 34.1k
  • 12
  • 109
  • 164

Put differently, do science historians need to explain, say, the discovery of thermodynamics in a mathematically rigorous manner like a physicist would? Or can they omit the highly technical aspects of thermodynamics from their study and just focus on relevant records written in a language accessible to them?

(If possible, I hope you could help look relevant on-line resources.)

Put differently, do science historians need to explain, say, the discovery of thermodynamics in a mathematically rigorous manner like a physicist would? Or can they omit the highly technical aspects of thermodynamics from their study and just focus on relevant records written in a language accessible to them?

(If possible, I hope you could help look relevant on-line resources.)

Put differently, do science historians need to explain, say, the discovery of thermodynamics in a mathematically rigorous manner like a physicist would? Or can they omit the highly technical aspects of thermodynamics from their study and just focus on relevant records written in a language accessible to them?

Source Link
Jay
Jay
  • 89
  • 2

What makes studying science different from studying the history of science?

Put differently, do science historians need to explain, say, the discovery of thermodynamics in a mathematically rigorous manner like a physicist would? Or can they omit the highly technical aspects of thermodynamics from their study and just focus on relevant records written in a language accessible to them?

(If possible, I hope you could help look relevant on-line resources.)