[Searching for science. A critique of experimental and mathematical traditions in the early modern period]

The article revisits the claim by Thomas Kuhn, that early modern science really consisted of two separate traditions, each with its own development: a mathematical and an experimental (or Baconian) tradition. It is argued that on close inspection, the grounds for this division appear rather arbitrary. Kuhn's Baconian tradition seems to have been modelled after an idealised concept of science that developed in circles of the Royal Society. It should be stressed, however, that such ideas were not the natural products of a tradition, but constructions which responded to local circumstances. The various forms of scientific practice are by no means an indication of parallel development. In fact, during the early modern era disciplinary boundaries were extremely fluid; the divisions of knowledge that were acknowledged do not have the character of modern disciplines. After all, science was as yet non-existent. It came into being as a result of intellectual experimentation and boundary-crossing, bringing together elements from various fields, rather than by the development of one or two traditions.