Tobias Bowman

Microscopes and Patchworks: An introduction to debates on present-centred and Whig history in the History of science.Tobias Bowman

The Study of Whig HistoryIncreasingly over the past half century, the History of Science as a broad discipline, has become more introspective.[footnoteRef:1] Hakfoort and others cite an awareness of the contemporary degree of change in the minds of Science Historians as one of the prompts for a more multifaceted approach to the History of Science, first championed in the 1930s by people such as Sigerist and Merton.[footnoteRef:2] This diversification into examining the sociology of science, the culture of experimentation or the economics of research arose predominantly out of this period of introspection. One of the primary effects of this change was to affect the way which older, more traditional historical inquiries into science, such as Gillespies The Edge of Objectivity, were regarded.[footnoteRef:3] Such pieces of work were now considered too vague, too selective, and crucially they were considered to be un-viable, because the perceived events and facts of the past had been unified into a contemporary philosophy.[footnoteRef:4] This use of the present context of a discipline or individual to convey meaning to past events was referred to first by Butterfield as Whig History and expanded upon latterly by Ashplant and Wilson as Present-Centred History.[footnoteRef:5] [1: C. Hakfoort, The Missing Syntheses in the Historiography of Science, History of Science, 29, 2 (1991), pp. 207-16; and also A. Barry, The History of Measurement and the Engineers of Space, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp. 459-68; and also A.M. Brandt, Emerging themes in the history of medicine, The Milbank Quarterly, 69, 2 (1991), pp. 199-214.] [2: Ibid pp.202; and also A. Cunningham and P. Williams, De-Centring the 'Big Picture': "The Origins of Modern Science" and the Modern Origins of Science, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp. 407-32; and also J. W. Leavitt, Medicine in Context: A Review Essay of the History of Medicine, The American Historical Review, 95, 5 (1990), pp. 1471-84.] [3: J. R. R. Christie, Aurora, Nemesis and Clio, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp. 391-405; and also C. C. Gillespie, The Edge of Objectivity (Princeton, 1960).] [4: A. Cunningham and P. Williams, De-Centring the 'Big Picture': "The Origins of Modern Science" and the Modern Origins of Science, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp. 407-32.] [5: A. R. Hall, On Whiggism, History of Science, 21, 1 (1983), pp. 45-59; and also A. Wilson and T. G. Ashplant, Whig History and Present-Centred History, The Historical Journal, 31, 1 (1988), pp. 1-16.]

These three authors, Herbert Butterfield, Timothy Ashplant and Adrian Wilson are among the core contributors to the discussion of this historical trope (though the work of Hall and of Elton has been undeniably useful in this area of study also)[footnoteRef:6] indeed it could be argued that Butterfields identification of Whig History was the first to examine the unifying, zeitgeist oriented histories so common in History in general, but specifically within synthetic histories, in a negative light.[footnoteRef:7] [6: G. R. Elton, The Practice of History, (London, 1967), pp. 100-3; and also A. R. Hall, On Whiggism, History of Science, 21, 1 (1983), pp. 45-60.] [7: H. Butterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History, (London, 1931).]

It is to Butterfield then that we must turn first, as his book The Whig Interpretation of History is key to the study of Whig History. Butterfields term Whig History arose from his study of the typically liberal (or Whig) histories of Britain produced in the 19th century. These histories often examined the constitutional crises of 17th century Britain in the context of the contemporary growth of liberty, the rule of law and the spread of religious tolerance. Whig History took the events of the past and perceived them in such a way as to make them instrumental in the events of the more recent past or the present, even though the perpetrators of the activities or events described could have had no way of knowing the future they were supposedly forging and they were, in fact, motivationally autochthonous.[footnoteRef:8] As such, a definition as Whig History constituted a form of criticism, wherein the historical work constructed or inferred truths or relevancies to historical sources which they did not themselves have.[footnoteRef:9] This practice had, until the beginning of the 20th century, been commonplace, if not universal within the British histories which Butterfield was examining, and his open critique of this historical methodology was therefore fresh in that respect.[footnoteRef:10] This tendency could be most commonly seen within the commonplace and wide ranging Synthetic histories, including those of science,[footnoteRef:11] such as The Edge of Objectivity or The Origins of Modern Science, by Butterfield himself.[footnoteRef:12] Butterfield also argued that one of the main flaws in Whig History was one of filtering; that Whig historians were very selective in the evidence from sources that they chose to study, preferring instead to seek out and use those sources which backed up the philosophy or paradigm they were trying to expound.[footnoteRef:13] Though he would later go on to do this himself in The Englishman and his History, it does not diminish the validity of his initial assessment.[footnoteRef:14] Butterfield was, himself in many ways a Whig historian, having a traditional British education at Cambridge, and was teaching History at Cambridge when he wrote The Whig Interpretation of History. [footnoteRef:15] As was mentioned above, his recognition of the trend of driving historical enquiry towards a model of the present as a negative in historical practice, quite new at the time, arose within the context of reading and examining many of the traditional British histories during his study in Cambridge. Indeed his later works, when straying from the area of historiography to his other main historical interests; Christian History (he was a devout Protestant) in particular, were often highly Whiggish by his own definition. Butterfields personal context is crucial in understanding one of the major flaws highlighted in his work by Hall and, later still, by Ashplant and Wilson. [8: A. Cunningham, Getting The Game Right: Some Plain Words On The Identity And Invention Of Science, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 19, 3 (1987), pp. 365-389.] [9: A. Wilson and T. G. Ashplant, Whig History and Present-Centred History, The Historical Journal, 31, 1 (1988), pp. 1-16.] [10: A. Cunningham, Getting The Game Right: Some Plain Words On The Identity And Invention Of Science, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 19, 3 (1987), pp. 365-389.] [11: A. Cunningham and P. Williams, De-Centring the 'Big Picture': "The Origins of Modern Science" and the Modern Origins of Science, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp. 407-32; and also J. R. R. Christie, Aurora, Nemesis and Clio, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp. 391-405.] [12: H. Butterfield, The Origins of Modern Science, 1300-1800, (London, 1949)] [13: A. Wilson and T. G. Ashplant, Whig History and Present-Centred History, The Historical Journal, 31, 1 (1988), pp. 1-16.] [14: A. R. Hall, On Whiggism, History of Science, 21, 1 (1983), pp. 45-59.] [15: M. Bentley, The Life and Thought of Herbert Butterfield: History, Science, and God, (Cambridge, 2011).]

Butterfield argued that the best way to counteract or prevent Whiggish History was for Historians to report on their area of study in the greatest detail, likening the work of the historian to that of the microscopist.[footnoteRef:16] He believed that elucidating as much data as possible surrounding the circumstances of past events would limit the degree to which historians could impose their own contextual substrate, as well as restrict their ability to pick and choose facts to fit their preconceived version of events. Butterfields definition of Whig History, and this prescribed treatment, was not examined in any significant critical detail until the work by Hall in the 1980s.[footnoteRef:17] Those examining Whiggish History before Hall had little option but to use Butterfields work, his toolkit of historical microscopy as a basis for their investigation (Carr had criticised Butterfields analysis in 1964, but not in such a way to allow discussion of alternate theoretical methodologies[footnoteRef:18]), which Hall argued is flawed. The Whig Interpretation of History can be considered flawed in several ways. Firstly, it is itself highly Whiggish: Butterfield, when examining the phenomenon in history, considers the case only of white, upper class, English historians, and then applies those observations to History as a global discipline, thus Butterfield could be seen as a slave to the practice he sought to destroy.[footnoteRef:19] Secondly his work contradicts itself; by proposing a method by which Whig History can be avoided completely, whilst simultaneously (and very vocally in his later work The Englishman and His History[footnoteRef:20]) accepting that historians will always be influenced by the present in some ways. Butterfield is proposing a cure to an illness he admits cannot be cured.[footnoteRef:21] Thirdly, Butterfield assumes that the truths of the past lie in the historical sources (relics) of the past, and that the work of the historian was to illuminate said truth, even though past sources cannot possibly contain the entire picture of past events.[footnoteRef:22] Butterfield, it must be remembered, was writing within the academic context of a British traditional historian, with interests in Constitutional History and the History of British Christianity.[footnoteRef:23] In this way Butterfield can be seen, even if writing historiographically, and on the practice of History, internally. His interest and knowledge are limited to academically accepted (White, male, upper/middle class, Christian, British) historians, and uses that understanding to form his argument.[footnoteRef:24] Butterfields later acceptance of Whig History as unavoidable, and coming to actively practice it in The Englishman and His History and later works reflects his realisation within the field of the traditional historical establishment in England, and specifically Cambridge (where he taught until his death in 1979)[footnoteRef:25], he could not function within his academic (and resultantly, social) sphere without it. [16: A. Wilson and T. G. Ashplant, Whig History and Present-Centred History, The Historical Journal, 31, 1 (1988), pp. 1-16.] [17: A. R. Hall, On Whiggism, History of Science, 21, 1 (1983), pp. 45-59.] [18: E. H. Carr, What is History?, (Harmondsworth, 1964).] [19: A. Wilson and T. G. Ashplant, Whig History and Present-Centred History, The Historical Journal, 31, 1 (1988), pp. 1-16.] [20: H. Butterfield, The Englishman and His History, (London, 1944) pp. 73.] [21: A. Wilson and T. G. Ashplant, Whig History and Present-Centred History, The Historical Journal, 31, 1 (1988), pp. 1-16.] [22: Ibid, pp. 7.] [23: M. Bentley, The Life and Thought of Herbert Butterfield: History, Science, and God, (Cambridge, 2011); and also B. Hancock, Gifford Lectures: Herbert Butterfield, Accessed 18 November 2013. http://www.giffordlectures.org/Author.asp?AuthorID=32,] [24: A. Wilson and T. G. Ashplant, Whig History and Present-Centred History, The Historical Journal, 31, 1 (1988), pp. 1-16.] [25: M. Bentley, The Life and Thought of Herbert Butterfield: History, Science, and God, (Cambridge, 2011).]

The Study of Present-Centred History

Hall and subsequently (and far more resolutely) Ashplant and Wilson attempt to reassess the practise of Present-Centred History whilst crucially trying to find a new standpoint on challenging it.[footnoteRef:26] Hall argues that as historical fact in practice approaches infinite proportions, the filtering of historical sources (considered the bane of Whig History by Butterfield) is necessary to all historical enquiry.[footnoteRef:27] Not only that, but as he considers a random selection to both be impossible and not particularly useful, he advocated that we examine how we select areas to study, rather than trying to study everything, in order to understand how to limit selecting sources to fit the thesis, this was especially important with Synthetic Histories.[footnoteRef:28] Ashplant and Wilson took Halls work, which set a precedent for examining Butterfields model and solution critically, and used it to define their new understanding of the nature and response to the same problem which Butterfield attempted to define as Whig History, Present-Centred History.[footnoteRef:29] [26: A. Wilson and T. G. Ashplant, Present-Centred History and the Problem of Historical Knowledge, The Historical Journal, 31, 2 (1988) pp. 253-74.] [27: A. R. Hall, On Whiggism, History of Science, 21, 1 (1983), pp. 45-59.] [28: Ibid, pp. 46.] [29: A. Wilson and T. G. Ashplant, Whig History and Present-Centred History, The Historical Journal, 31, 1 (1988), pp. 1-16.]

Present-Centred History, like Whig History, is broadly considered something to be avoided in modern historical writing; Ashplant and Wilson assert that the categorisation of past events into contemporary contexts introduces bias and distortion to historical research.[footnoteRef:30] Present-Centredness pervaded a great deal of work, particularly synthetic histories, in the History of Science; Natural Philosophers and Alchemists of the past were traditionally painted as pioneers in the field of science at the time, devoting their life to research and the study of the universe, as a step on the path to modern age, regardless of the truth or falsehood of that statement. Like Butterfield before them, but unlike Butterfields earlier historical detractors like Carr, Elton and Hall,[footnoteRef:31] Ashplant and Wilson attempted to set out a toolkit by which one might minimise Present-Centred Histories.[footnoteRef:32] Butterfield, as mentioned above, suggested a method of going into intense detail on every topic studied, thus allowing the reader increased agency of interpretation. Ashplant and Wilson, on the other hand, argue for an awareness of the tendency on the part of the historian, and a clearer understanding of the local, contextual motivations of those creating the data being studied (i.e. the primary sources).[footnoteRef:33] Both however agree (oxymoronically in Butterfields case, pragmatically in Ashplant and Wilsons) that this process can only be one of limitation; that the historian by their very nature is writing within the context of the present, and that one cannot truly separate oneself from the present and immerse oneself in the past without access to a time machine which is, sadly, not forthcoming. [30: Ibid, pp. 6-8.] [31: E. H. Carr, What is History?, (Harmondsworth, 1964); and also G. R. Elton, The Practice of History, (London, 1967), pp. 100-3; and also A. R. Hall, On Whiggism, History of Science, 21, 1 (1983), pp. 45-60.] [32: A. Wilson and T. G. Ashplant, Whig History and Present-Centred History, The Historical Journal, 31, 1 (1988), pp. 1-16.] [33: Ibid. pp. 6; and also G. R. Elton, The Practice of History, (London, 1967), pp. 100-3.]

Unlike Butterfield however, Ashplant and Wilson have the luxury of hailing from two very different academic institutions at the time of their historiographically vital collaboration. Wilson writing from the Wellcome Unit for the History of Medicine at Cambridge, where his area of study pertained mainly to the History of Childbirth and Midwifery, and Ashplant writing from The School of Humanities and Social Sciences at Liverpool Polytechnic (presently Liverpool John Moores University), where his area of study revolves mainly around British Cultural History.[footnoteRef:34] As a result, both the authors of the two crucial papers: Whig History and Present-Centred History and Present-Centred History and the Problem of Historical Knowledge are therefore writing from very different areas of historical interest, with different academic contexts and different historiographies, as well as differing historical practices. Their shared interest in historiographics, and their context of reading Halls critique of The Whig Interpretation of History and finding it both enlightening and lacking, lead to their views and production of this new analysis, and a new tool-kit. This contrasts with the case of Butterfield, whose writing and perception of history was saturated by the academic and cultural contexts he was educated and found himself within. [34: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/arts/people/20042/school_of_humanities/person/822/adrian_wilson, Accessed 18 November 2013; and also http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/cws/gsp/ashplantbio.html, Accessed 18 November 2013.]

The response to present-centrednessOn the one hand therefore is the recognition in recent decades that the broader synthetic studies of the History of Science are no longer viable due to their Present-Centred pervading philosophies and/or historical practices,[footnoteRef:35] and that the History of Science among other historical disciplines needs to reduce the degree to which it is written with both eyes in the present.[footnoteRef:36] On the other hand however, is the recognition by Hakfoort, Cunningham and Williams, and others that it was this assessment of the state of History, and more specifically the History of Science (and even more specifically, though not exclusively, its synthetic histories)[footnoteRef:37] which has created the academic environment providing the development of the Sociology (and Microsociology) of Science[footnoteRef:38], the culture of disease or the rationality of ethics to be explored. In this sense therefore, Present-Centred History has been a boon to the study of the History of Science.[footnoteRef:39] [35: J. R. R. Christie, Aurora, Nemesis and Clio, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp. 391-405.] [36: A. Wilson and T. G. Ashplant, Whig History and Present-Centred History, The Historical Journal, 31, 1 (1988), pp. 1-16.] [37: C. Hakfoort, The Missing Syntheses in the Historiography of Science, History of Science, 29, 2 (1991), pp. 207-16; and also; A. Cunningham and P. Williams, De-Centring the 'Big Picture': "The Origins of Modern Science" and the Modern Origins of Science, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp. 407-32; and also A.M. Brandt, Emerging themes in the history of medicine, The Milbank Quarterly, 69, 2 (1991), pp. 199-214.] [38: A Barry, The History of Measurement and the Engineers of Space, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp. 459 68.] [39: Ibid, pp. 466 8.]

Whilst an awareness of the present whilst studying the past helped bring to light a new field of study in the diverse factors affecting what is considered Science today, it remains the case that Present-Centred bias, and the application to historian-contemporary category-systems to historical data, across the broader discipline of History as well as within the History of Science, can create understandings of the past which are not accurate. As it is generally accepted that the historian should strive towards historical truth, regardless of the unobtainability of such Truth, it could still arguably be best practise to minimise sources of bias and inference in any historical work, and applying contemporary category-systems to past activities or events is imposing bias at the level of writing, even historical thought.[footnoteRef:40] [40: A. Wilson and T. G. Ashplant, Whig History and Present-Centred History, The Historical Journal, 31, 1 (1988), pp. 1-16.]

One should not assume however that Present-Centredness is a historical failing confined to early 20th century historians, nor that it is one easily mitigated. Authors on the subject, whilst proposing a variety of evolving methods for limiting the effect of Present-Centredness, present no concrete solution.[footnoteRef:41] Butterfield attempted to do so, and perhaps within his limited field of knowledge as a historian of his time, may have succeeded, but Ashplant and Wilson were, unlike Butterfield, part of a far more diverse and discursive academic community.[footnoteRef:42] They were able to draw on the work of others, and use it to build a far broader understanding of the more general historiography of science, and of historical writing in general, than Butterfield ever could in his context. This allows them to understand and acknowledge that their solution is not an absolute or final measure, nor that such a thing is even possible, their approach is tailored to reducing the effects of Present-Centredness, not eradicating it, as Butterfield sought to do for Whiggism. [41: Ibid, A. Cunningham and P. Williams, De-Centring the 'Big Picture': "The Origins of Modern Science" and the Modern Origins of Science, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp 407-32, and also A. R. Hall, Presidential Address: Can the History of Science Be History?, The British Journal for the History of Science, 4, 3, (1969), pp. 207-20.] [42: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/arts/people/20042/school_of_humanities/person/822/adrian_wilson, Accessed 18 November 2013; and also http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/cws/gsp/ashplantbio.html, Accessed 18 November 2013.]

Ashplant and Wilson, and to a lesser extent Hall, were therefore able to recognise that every single piece of historical writing, no matter how impartial, incorporates some degree of present-oriented bias within it,[footnoteRef:43] even this briefest of papers of the topic draws heavily on contemporary contexts within the discipline. Modern work in the History of Science, along with other histories incorporates this bias to one degree or another, awareness of the problem has not led to a solution, indeed no concrete solution has been offered beyond the original one proposed by Butterfield in 1931: detail.[footnoteRef:44] The only approaches to the problem, outlined by Hall and elaborated on by Ashplant and Wilson, are mitigatory, despite their assertions of developing a new toolkit to combat Present-Centrism, they fail to do more than illustrate why one is needed, and that awareness of the issue is key, providing instead a tool-kit for reducing the innate tendency to be Present-Centred, they provide a painkiller, not a vaccine.[footnoteRef:45] [43: A. Wilson and T. G. Ashplant, Whig History and Present-Centred History, The Historical Journal, 31, 1 (1988), pp. 1-16.] [44: A. Wilson and T. G. Ashplant, Present-Centred History and the Problem of Historical Knowledge, The Historical Journal, 31, 2 (1988) pp. 253-74.] [45: A. Wilson and T. G. Ashplant, Whig History and Present-Centred History, The Historical Journal, 31, 1 (1988), pp. 1-16.]

The question for some people might therefore become What is the point?; If all historical writing will involve a degree of bias brought about by the historian writing from the present, and not the past that he or she studies, why try to prevent this bias? The response for those people would be, probably, that it is not so much about preventing the bias as it is about understanding it. The benefits of understanding the nature and extent of Present-Centredness, both in past histories and contemporary ones, is primarily twofold. Firstly, attempting to understand the varying degrees with which the events of the past were interpreted with the filter of the present in extant historical writings allows us to better understand the nature of the history of the discipline and the historiographical framework.[footnoteRef:46] Secondly, an awareness of the ways in which historians can, inadvertently, introduce their own perspectives and biases into the creation of histories can allow us to be mindful of them as we work, which would not prevent Present-Centred bias from occurring, but it stands to reason that a conscientious Historian of Science would be able to limit the degree to which they use contemporary paradigms, philosophies or category-systems to filter or control their sources.[footnoteRef:47] [46: Ibid., pp. 1-3; and also A. R. Hall, On Whiggism, History of Science, 21, 1 (1983), pp. 45-59; and also G. R. Elton, The Practice of History, (London, 1967), pp. 100-3.] [47: A. Wilson and T. G. Ashplant, Present-Centred History and the Problem of Historical Knowledge, The Historical Journal, 31, 2 (1988) pp. 253-74.]

Conclusions

If this introduction were written in the manner of a Whig Historian (not to claim that it is not, more that the degree to which it is, is being limited), the work of Butterfield and that of Hall, Ashplant & Wilson, Cunningham, Elton and others might be combined into a new Meta-Contextual History where all studies of historical events conducted within, or influenced by, contexts other than those of their reality, could be collated. This would ignore the fact not only that Whig History and Present-Centred History are not quite the same thing, but also that they were examined within very different historical and cultural spheres, the former still in the traditional framework of the well-travelled upper-class historian, where the practice of History was (within Britain, at least) an lite activity, and the latter in a more open, discursive academic work of the peer review, the collaborative paper and the inter-institutional study.

Whilst it can be argued that the work of Butterfield to establish his name and relevance within his academic context (and within the historiographical lexicon) did form part of the impetus for later work on Present-Centrism and the work of historians in the broader field to limit the extent that their own experiences or thought-processes affect the past they are attempting to elucidate. However, the work of Butterfield, and that of Hall, Ashplant and Wilson, Carr and others sit within their respective academic contexts, a part of a continuing field of study, and of historiological practice, new contexts may allow for new examinations of the perennial problem, and perhaps even new solutions to accompany them. However, the human nature of the historian at present precludes any panacea; there is no way to remove the person from the historian, or the historical enquiry itself, at this time. Awareness by some historians of the problems that Present-Centredness and Whiggishness create does allow for limited self-regulation, or better still regulation by mass peer review, which has only been a viable control for historic enquiry since the rise of internet-enabled research, inasmuch as a wider variety of individuals than ever before are available to cross examine the work of others as the work is being done (it of course occurred before this, though not on so large or so rapid a scale to allow active feedback). Regardless, a continuation of the study of the nature of Present-Centredness, or whatever term may be used next by the conundrum of the historian living in one time and studying another, and the agency of the historian, is vital. Both for the continued change and development of the discipline, and for the facility it could provide to future historians seeking to examine early 21st century historiography and historical practice, and the context of the sources we ourselves create. Ashplant and Wilson argued that two contemporary historians can read the same source differently, that the context of each individual is different, and that each individuals personal context inevitably changes our understanding of information created, again inevitably, within a separate context.[footnoteRef:48] Knowledge, then, is constructed, they argue, indeed knowledge must be a construction of the knower, but as with all constructions, it is best used on a firm foundation. Ashplant and Wilson existed within different contexts from each other, and this perhaps suggests a way of mitigating Present-Centredness, Collaborate. Work with other historians, from other departments, with other backgrounds, may help create a piece of historical enquiry as divorced from the Weltanshauung of any one individual as possible. This way, perhaps, the effects of Present-Centredness on History can be reduced. Whilst Present-Centredness cannot be avoided entirely, as Butterfield argued, such avoidance should perhaps be the model to which History subscribes, and may be simpler to achieve than many expect. [48: A. Wilson and T. G. Ashplant, Whig History and Present-Centred History, The Historical Journal, 31, 1 (1988), pp. 1-16.]

Bibliography Barry, A., The History of Measurement and the Engineers of Space, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp. 459 468. Bentley, M., The Life and Thought of Herbert Butterfield: History, Science, and God, (Cambridge, 2011). Brandt, A. M., Emerging themes in the history of medicine, The Milbank Quarterly, 69, 2 (1991), pp. 199-214. Butterfield, H., The Whig Interpretation of History, (London, 1931). -----------------, The Englishman and His History, (London, 1944) pp. 73. -----------------, The Origins of Modern Science, 1300-1800, (London, 1949) Carr, E. H., What is History?, (Harmondsworth, 1964). Christie, J.R.R., Aurora, Nemesis and Clio, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp. 391-405. Cunningham, A., Getting The Game Right: Some Plain Words On The Identity And Invention Of Science, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 19, 3 (1987), pp. 365-389). Cunningham, A. and Williams, P., De-Centring the 'Big Picture': "The Origins of Modern Science" and the Modern Origins of Science, The British Journal for the History of Science, 26, 4 (1993), pp 407-432. Elton, G. R., The Practice of History, (London, 1967). Gillespie, C.C., The Edge of Objectivity (Princeton, 1960). Hakfoort, C., The Missing Syntheses in the Historiography of Science, History of Science, 29, 2 (1991), pp. 207-16. Hall, A. R., On Whiggism, History of Science, 21, 1 (1983), pp. 45-60. ------------- Presidential Address: Can the History of Science Be History?, The British Journal for the History of Science, 4, 3, (1969), pp. 207-220. Hancock, B., Gifford Lectures: Herbert Butterfield, Accessed 18 November 2013. http://www.giffordlectures.org/Author.asp?AuthorID=32, Leavitt, J. W., Medicine in Context: A Review Essay of the History of Medicine, The American Historical Review, 95, 5 (1990), pp. 1471-1484. Wilson, A. and Ashplant, T. G., Whig History and Present-Centred History, The Historical Journal, 31, 1 (1988), pp. 1-16. -------------------------------------, Present-Centred History and the Problem of Historical Knowledge, The Historical Journal, 31, 2 (1988) pp. 253-274. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/arts/people/20042/school_of_humanities/person/822/adrian_wilson, Accessed 18 November 2013. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/cws/gsp/ashplantbio.html, Accessed 18 November 2013.