Considerations Regarding the History of Science Transfer: Background and Method

The transfer of science was accelerated with the spread of European colonialism and its efforts to conquer and rule other parts of the world. Until the eighties of the twentieth century the historiography of science was focused on the spearhead of scientific activity and too little research was done on social and economic factors influencing the production of science. Since then, however, historians of science have turned their attention to social, political, institutional and economic factors, thereby bringing to light important aspects of this branch of human activity. Two factors, more than others, are responsible for this turn: Thomas Kuhn’s model of science and Edward Said’s critique of Orientalism. In the first part of this paper the transfer of science will be looked at and the models by George Basalla and Joseph Needham will be discussed. In part two Kuhn’s observations and Said’s Orientalism critique together with Chakrabarty’s contribution to the historiography of science transfer will be discussed. Finally some aspects of the historiography of science transfer and its methodology will be presented along with an appraisal of a critique pertaining to the historiography of modern science in Iran