How *you* understand and historical research

Chris studies the history and philosophy of science and mathematics. He is currently translating several works by Hilbert, Nordheim, and von Neumann as part of a project on the philosophy of mathematics that informed early quantum mechanics formalisms. He is also interested in: historical method and how this should inform general philosophy of science; the cognitive foundations of mathematics; and the construction of identity in (especially American) politics. Chris posts under the banner "Method Matters".
Chris Mitsch

One thing I’ve come to appreciate better in recent months is the constraints your own understanding can place on your historical research. We’ve all likely run into a preposterous claim–say, that Kant was the first to discover the incompleteness theorem–and rolled our eyes, having recognized there is some anachronistic reasoning going on here. But the…

A maybe-interesting feature of Sapolsky’s method

Chris studies the history and philosophy of science and mathematics. He is currently translating several works by Hilbert, Nordheim, and von Neumann as part of a project on the philosophy of mathematics that informed early quantum mechanics formalisms. He is also interested in: historical method and how this should inform general philosophy of science; the cognitive foundations of mathematics; and the construction of identity in (especially American) politics. Chris posts under the banner "Method Matters".
Chris Mitsch

This year I’ve been running a reading group I’ve called “Effective Interdisciplinarity.” In my less professional moments I have been describing its concern as this: how does one avoid doing shitty interdisciplinary work? By “shitty” I mean to include not only the more obvious truth-y stuff–e.g., accurately representing the research of a non-native discipline–and methodological…