Hugo Holbling

In that case, i suggest trying to locate a copy of Max Jammer's The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics (it might be expensive so try to order it from a library). It's a comprehensive philosophical study of quantum theory from an historical perspective (Jammer's other studies of concepts in physics - mass, force and space - are also fascinating). Another option you might enjoy is Pickering's Constructing Quarks.

Something Kuhn wrote in his much-maligned The Structure of Scientific Revolutions might interest you, then. In chapter eleven he suggested that "[t]extbooks... being pedagogical vehicles for the perpetuation of normal science, have to be rewritten in whole or in part whenever the language, problem-structure, or standards of normal science change." What he meant was that the pedagogical nature of textbooks is such that they become a function of the historical linearity that most scientists assume - i.e., that everyone was working on the same problems and that we are closer to the answers than those before us.

Aye. If a philosopher of science declares that "science proceeds in fashion x" but we find that this advice would have forced us to reject a theory in the past that - with the benefit of hindsight - we now want to keep, we have to either abandon this philosophical approach or bite the bullet and say that losing the theory would have been the right thing to do. (For example, see the discussion of special relativity here.) This is (partly) where Popper fell at the first fence - although he didn't play bball. :(

Thanks for the kind words on my bluster. I hope it helps.

The Heretic introduced me to this place, which looks nice. I run The Galilean Library and The Academy (just started, though) and am mostly interested in Historiography or the History and Philosophy of Science. My apologies in advance if i link too much in my posts here but i've already written quite a bit for beginners and it makes sense to offer this stuff as amplification. This site seems friendly and undogmatic. I'll try to join in as much as i can.

No, but it can help. More importantly, it's useful to know something of the history of science (or at least several key episodes - like the so-called Galileo Affair, say). That's partly why Lakatos said that "Philosophy of science without history of science is empty; history of science without philosophy of science is blind." A working or thorough knowledge also increases the possibility of an imminent critique (although it isn't unachievable without).

I just joined so i'm a bit late to the party in this thread, but i wrote an essay on this subject that might help answer your question.