Kuhn and the genesis of the “new historiography of science”

In this paper I identify a tension between the two sets of works by Kuhn regarding the genesis of the “new historiography of science”. In the first, it could be said that the change from the traditional to the new historiography is strictly endogenous (referring to internal causes or reasons). In the second, the change is predominantly exogenous. To address this question, I draw on a text that is considered to be less important among Kuhn’s works, but which, as shall be argued, allows some contact between Kuhn’s two approaches via Koyré. I seek to point out and differentiate the roles of Koyré and Kuhn—from Kuhn’s point of view—in the development of the historiography of science and, as a complement, present some reflections regarding the justification of the new historiography.

► I identify a tension in Kuhn on the genesis of the new historiography of science.
► The change to the NHS could be strictly endogenous or predominantly exogenous.
► So I draw on a text that allows a contact between Kuhn’s two approaches via Koyré.
► I point out and differentiate the roles of Koyré and Kuhn in the genesis of the NHS.
► And I suggest that the tension in Kuhn is due to his justification of the NHS.