I think there is a lot of difference between how history as a method proceeds when it is not inflected by STS and what it is, though STS-like-approaches have spread beyond strictly history of science at times.
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
STS approaches tend not to take certain things about epistemology for granted that many other approaches to history do. We ask different questions, we bring different theoretical preoccupations to the table.
If the question is, could there be history of science that is *not* inflected by what we consider STS today — sure, that's what very old-school history of science used to be about. Many purely "internalist" histories of science kind of fall into this category.