Why historical research needs mathematicians now more than ever (Q6623904)

This author feels himself to be a mathematician and a historian of mathematics but detects an ``acrimonious divorce'' between both fields. The former were ``interested as ever in history'' but cut off from history ``to avoid anachronism'' (p.~113).\N\NHis aim is ``a new internalist historiography'' (p.~114), and he does not miss the opportunity to use the modern term of being ``inclusive'' (p.~116). He pleads for a ``complimentary internalism'' to complement the ``orthodox'' one. It is his aim to overcome ``photorealism'', which is his term for the ``exact adherence to the surface~[\textit{sic!}] form of the written text'' (p.~119) and what is claimed to ``effectively preclude comparative, synthesising studies''. But this is not demonstrated. He asserts that ``comparative, synthesising perspectives necessarily [\ldots] are [\ldots] at odds with photorealism'' (p.~120), without giving any argument; instead he confines to showing two pedestrian examples.\N\NHis alternative is ``global cognitive contextualisation'' (p.~120). ``Cognitive questions concern how certain ideas functioned in the minds~[\textit{sic!}] of historical thinkers.'' (p.~118). However, no method is specified or at least suggested how to grasp the age-old chimera of the ``idea in the mind of~[\ldots]''.\N\NRelying on several examples, this author feels himself qualified to ``understand the significance of the technical details of an argument'' (p.~123). Undoubtedly, ``only mathematicians are likely to possess'' this required expertise (p.~128, ``conclusion'').\N\NIt is no novelty that a pure mathematician knows by himself how to do history of mathematics in the right way, in disregard of any methodological or even (\textit{horribile dictu}) philosophical perspectives. The word ``change'' (or ``development'') which expresses the substance of history is carefully avoided in this new perspective, which this author claims to be a historiographical one.\N\NThe reader may get the impression that this mathematician did not yet manage to open a productive discussion with historians of mathematics. The once substantial struggle regarding the relation between nonstandard and classical infinitesimal analysis is plainly valued an ``anachronistically motived debate that is orthogonal to the concerns of historical mathematicians'' (p.~115). However, it really confronted the ``idea[s] in the mind[s] of'' the former researchers with the modern concepts and even stimulated philosophers to enter the debate.\N\NFor the entire collection see [Zbl 1537.01004].