Other strong entries will also be considered for presentation at the Congress.
In order to ensure this consideration, entrants should submit the entry also as an individual paper proposal for the Congress by the deadline of 15 December 2018, following the standard instructions indicated on the Congress website .
’s winning essay begins with an insightful and systematic typology of the many difficulties faced by the case-study method in the history and philosophy of science.
In discussing remedies to these difficulties, Bolinska and Martin focus on the “metaphysical” type of worry: “what if history itself is just inherently unsuited to providing evidential support for philosophical claims?
The winners of the Second IUHPST Essay Prize in History and Philosophy of Science are Dr. We are also pleased to recognize as runner-up the essay “History and Philosophy of Science after the Practice-Turn: From Inherent Tension to Local Integration” by Max W. ’s winning essay begins with an insightful and systematic typology of the many difficulties faced by the case-study method in the history and philosophy of science.
Martin of the University of Cambridge for their essay “Negotiating History: Contingency, Canonicity, and Case Studies”.
And the appreciation of relevant historical contingencies is crucial for the identification of a canonical case.
Bolinska and Martin offer an illuminating analysis of the concept of contingency, disambiguating it from the notion of chance and showing how it is crucially implicated in the historical-cum-philosophical explanation of past scientific episodes.
Presenting at the Congress will be a condition of the award.
The award will carry a cash prize of US$ 1,000 and, in addition, a waiver of the Congress registration fee.