An important general message emerges from Dresow’s discussion: the history–philosophy relation looks inherently problematic only if we are trying to discern an overall relationship at the level of whole disciplines; these worries largely dissipate when we consider how historical sources and facts are used “locally” in pursuit of specific philosophical aims. Bolinska and Martin will receive their prize and present the content of their essay in a special session at the 16th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science and Technology (CLMPST) in Prague (5–10 August 2019). Dresow will also be invited to present his work in the same session.This prize is administered by the Joint Commission, whose remit is to make links between the work of the two Divisions of the IUHPST, viz.
The author of the winning entry will be invited to present the work at the 16th Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science and Technology (CLMPST 2019) to be held at the Czech Technical University, Prague, Czechia, 5–10 August 2019.The 2017 prize was won by Theodore Arabatzis of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, for his essay “ What’s in it for the historian of science? All entries should contain original work that has not previously been published.For entries written originally in another language, an English translation should be submitted, with an indication of the translator.Entries in the form of an essay of 5,000–10,000 words in English are invited, addressing this year’s prize question: “What is the value of history of science for philosophy of science?” This question is intended as a counterpart to the question for the inaugural run of the prize in 2017, which asked about the value of philosophy of science for history of science.Presenting at the Congress will be a condition of the award.The award will carry a cash prize of US$ 1,000 and, in addition, a waiver of the Congress registration fee.Read more is devoted to the integrated study of the history, philosophy and sociology of the sciences.The editors encourage contributions both in the long-established areas of the history of the sciences and the philosophy of the sciences and in the topical areas of historiography of the sciences, the sciences in relation to gender, culture and society and the sciences in relation to arts.’s winning essay begins with an insightful and systematic typology of the many difficulties faced by the case-study method in the history and philosophy of science.In discussing remedies to these difficulties, Bolinska and Martin focus on the “metaphysical” type of worry: “what if history itself is just inherently unsuited to providing evidential support for philosophical claims?