There seems to be a lot confusion in the replies here regarding what Audra is saying — which is an entirely uncontroversial statement within the academic disciplines that study how science works now and in the past (e.g., the History, Anthropology, & Sociology of Science).https://twitter.com/ColdWarScience/status/1017211382176059392 …
(And to ask your snarky question — I've listened to many a physicist, Cormac! Some of my best colleagues are physicists. And some of my favorite historians are physicists, too. But I also listen to lots of different forms of expertise. All part of the job, alas.)
-
-
I am saying that the context of the discoveries is itself necessarily shaped by the context in which the work is done. Full stop. It might be subtle, it might be extreme. Depends on the circumstance. But it's there. Hard to imagine what a context-free discovery would look like.
-
(Separately, you will be amused I am sure to know that David Kaiser — historian of physicist and actively publishing theoretical physicist — has been working for some years now on a book about the political history of GR. The talks I have seen from it are very interesting!)
-
Good morning! Yes, I know David well, and admire his work. I also hugely enjoyed his lectures on the history of physics at MIT. I think David and I would agree that the initial gestation (as opposed to reception) of GR was simply the curiosity of one man, and not political
-
Well, I think you will be surprised by his book, then! Definitely check it out when it comes out. It is closer to my take on this than yours, in my judgment (from having seen him give talks on it, and having worked as a research assistant for parts of it).
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.