Follow us on Bluesky
Bluesky · Hashtag

#histSTM

93
posts · 30d
29
users
3
posts / day
3.2
posts / user
+ 42% vs last week

#histSTM is an active hashtag on Bluesky. In the last 30 days, 29 people shared 93 posts with it — around 3 a day. Activity is up 42% versus the previous week, peaking on Jul 24 with 8 posts.

#histSTM posts per day (last 30 days)

Related tags

Tags most often used together with #histSTM.

#histmed 17 #ESHS-HSS 15 #histsci 14 #histtech 6 #evobio 5 #philsci 5

Posts with #histSTM

Monica H Green
@monicamedhist.bsky.social
11 months ago
Here's a #GiftLink for those who want to read the full NYT obit of historian of science & gender, Margaret Rossiter. www.nytimes.com/2025/08/2…. #histSTM 🧪🗃️
Margaret W. Rossiter, 81, Dies; Wrote Women Scientists Into History

www.nytimes.com

Margaret W. Rossiter, 81, Dies; Wrote Women Scientists Into History

"It took her nearly two decades to find a permanent academic position. She found occasional work as a visiting professor, filling in for someone on leave for a year or two. She earned grants to fund her research... but she was often living on unemployment benefits" www.nytimes.com/2025/08/29/s...

www.nytimes.com
17 301 534
The HPS Podcast
@hpspodcast.bsky.social
almost 2 years ago
We made another thing! Here is a pretty great 'HPS Starter Pack' so you too can follow all the awesome history, philosophy and social studies of science (and #metasci #histSTM #philsci #philsky #hps #histsci 🧪) accounts on Bluesky. Please share widely #academicsky :)
History & Philosophy of Science (HPS) Starter Pack
The HPS Podcast

History & Philosophy of Science (HPS) Starter Pack

Starter pack by The HPS Podcast

A starter pack focussing on HPS, History of Science and Philosophy of Science, along with relevant STS (science & technology studies), metascience and HistSTM (history of science, technology and medicine) accounts
69 187 341
Greg Priest
@gregpriest.bsky.social
5 days ago
Donald Griffin, discoverer of bat echolocation, was born OTD 1915. I imagine “small mammals enough like ourselves to feel that I could understand what their lives would be like, and yet different enough to make it a sort of adventure and exploration to see what they were doing.” 🐋🌱🧪 #HistSTM
Fig. 11 from Griffin, Echoes of Bats and Men (1959). “The frequency and wave length of a bat's sound vary during each chirp. This diagram, which is approximately to scale, illustrates the small amount of sound reflected by one insect.”I
3 14 46
Greg Priest
@gregpriest.bsky.social
about 1 year ago
At long last, my PhD dissertation—Charles Darwin’s Science of History—has been filed and approved. I graduate shortly. The abstract is below. 🌱🐋🦋🦫🗃️🧠🧪 #HistSTM #PhilSci
Abstract The natural sciences and history seem to represent alternative, even antithetical, ways of understanding the world. The natural sciences seek recurring patterns in nature and explain them using general laws. History concerns itself with unique events and explains them using narratives of how they happened as they did. This dichotomy has come to seem natural, even inevitable. But it is neither. Charles Darwin believed that it is possible to integrate the natural sciences and history into a unified program of inquiry that can explain stable and recurring patterns in nature using contingent historical processes rather than general laws. And he devoted his career to building such a unified program. In this dissertation, I examine the development and character of this science of history.Darwin did not begin his scientific career pursuing this project. When he first began to build a science of living nature, Darwin’s goal was to discover and characterize the necessary and invariant laws that govern and explain the living world. He had internalized a conception of science that had been formulated by John Herschel, Charles Lyell, and Charles Babbage. They had seen scientific explanation as consisting in showing phenomena to be the necessary results of universal laws, taking as their model Isaac Newton’s laws of motion. Darwin in his turn consecrated himself to the ambition to do for the living world what Newton had done for the heavens: he would discover and characterize the laws of life. Within a decade, however, Darwin would come to abandon his ambition to subsume the living world under a regime of invariant laws. He came to reject the simple, linear conception of causation on which his Newtonian program had been founded in
favor of an understanding of evolutionary causation as ineluctably complex. He also came to realize that history has causal power in the living world, both constraining and creative. Darwin ultimately concluded that, to do justice to the profound complexity and historicity of the living world, he would have to integrate the natural sciences and history into a unified program of inquiry. This required him to rethink what laws of nature are and to reconceive the goals of scientific explanation. He came to understand explanation of living nature in more pragmatic terms, as making phenomena intelligible to working naturalists and providing them a conceptual framework to organize and drive their scientific work. Most fundamentally, he concluded that explanations in the sciences of life must take history seriously, not as a fixed stage on which evolution unfolds, but as a critical component of biological explanation. In order to create explanatory tools better adapted to his revised conception of science, Darwin returned to several ideas he had encountered as a young man and reimagined them through a historicizing lens. These included the natural theological notion of contrivance, the biblical and literary image of the tree of life, and the imaginary demon that the mentors of his youth had created to define a regulative ideal for scientific knowledge. Darwin did not merely appropriate these older ideas. He reconceived them by viewing them through a historicizing lens to make tools for making sense of the phenomena of living nature. Darwin’s science of history did not long survive him. His vision of a unified program of inquiry fell into an eclipse after his death, even among scientists who have considered themselves to be his greatest champions. And that eclipse has not yet ended.
20 15 176
Greg Priest
@gregpriest.bsky.social
about 1 year ago
Each year, Stanford’s History Department awards a dissertation prize. The Best Written Dissertation Prize goes to a student whose work “is honorable not simply for originality in research, but also for clarity and elegance in writing.” I just found out that I won. Yea! 🐋🌱🦋🦫🗃️🧠🧪 #HistSTM #PhilSci

At long last, my PhD dissertation—Charles Darwin’s Science of History—has been filed and approved. I graduate shortly. The abstract is below. 🌱🐋🦋🦫🗃️🧠🧪 #HistSTM #PhilSci
Abstract The natural sciences and history seem to represent alternative, even antithetical, ways of understanding the world. The natural sciences seek recurring patterns in nature and explain them using general laws. History concerns itself with unique events and explains them using narratives of how they happened as they did. This dichotomy has come to seem natural, even inevitable. But it is neither. Charles Darwin believed that it is possible to integrate the natural sciences and history into a unified program of inquiry that can explain stable and recurring patterns in nature using contingent historical processes rather than general laws. And he devoted his career to building such a unified program. In this dissertation, I examine the development and character of this science of history.Darwin did not begin his scientific career pursuing this project. When he first began to build a science of living nature, Darwin’s goal was to discover and characterize the necessary and invariant laws that govern and explain the living world. He had internalized a conception of science that had been formulated by John Herschel, Charles Lyell, and Charles Babbage. They had seen scientific explanation as consisting in showing phenomena to be the necessary results of universal laws, taking as their model Isaac Newton’s laws of motion. Darwin in his turn consecrated himself to the ambition to do for the living world what Newton had done for the heavens: he would discover and characterize the laws of life. Within a decade, however, Darwin would come to abandon his ambition to subsume the living world under a regime of invariant laws. He came to reject the simple, linear conception of causation on which his Newtonian program had been founded in
favor of an understanding of evolutionary causation as ineluctably complex. He also came to realize that history has causal power in the living world, both constraining and creative. Darwin ultimately concluded that, to do justice to the profound complexity and historicity of the living world, he would have to integrate the natural sciences and history into a unified program of inquiry. This required him to rethink what laws of nature are and to reconceive the goals of scientific explanation. He came to understand explanation of living nature in more pragmatic terms, as making phenomena intelligible to working naturalists and providing them a conceptual framework to organize and drive their scientific work. Most fundamentally, he concluded that explanations in the sciences of life must take history seriously, not as a fixed stage on which evolution unfolds, but as a critical component of biological explanation. In order to create explanatory tools better adapted to his revised conception of science, Darwin returned to several ideas he had encountered as a young man and reimagined them through a historicizing lens. These included the natural theological notion of contrivance, the biblical and literary image of the tree of life, and the imaginary demon that the mentors of his youth had created to define a regulative ideal for scientific knowledge. Darwin did not merely appropriate these older ideas. He reconceived them by viewing them through a historicizing lens to make tools for making sense of the phenomena of living nature. Darwin’s science of history did not long survive him. His vision of a unified program of inquiry fell into an eclipse after his death, even among scientists who have considered themselves to be his greatest champions. And that eclipse has not yet ended.
27 8 174
Greg Priest
@gregpriest.bsky.social
over 1 year ago
I knew, of course, that William Whewell first coined the word “scientist,” but I had no idea that the idea remained so controversial that Nature was still weighing in on the appropriateness of the term at least as late as 1925. www.nature.com/articles/1… #HistSTM #PhilSci #STS
9 45 167
Ben Gross
@bhgross144.bsky.social
2 days ago
This book looks super cool! It also reminds me that @ransomcenter.bsky.social is home to Gérard de Vaucouleurs's photography collection, which I really need to explore at some point... research.hrc.utexas.edu/p…. #histSTM #histsci #histastro 🗃️📜 #astrophotography #photography 📷 🔭

This 1961 book, with plates of some historically important astronomical photos, just arrived in the mail. Moon pics are from de la Rue, 1857, wet collodion plate (bottom) using 13 inch 🔭, and Common’s 1877 photo with his 18 inch. The Great Comet of 1882 is in the other pictures, by Gill at the Cape.
Cover page of book by Gerard de Vaucouleurs
Quite modern-looking image of the moon, top, and earlier image, below, with greater contrast and greater definition of crater rays and maria.
Left image shows comet with long broad tail; 30 minute exposure on Oct 19, 1882. Right image is 110-minute exposure on November 7, 1882, and shows many stars, which led to the first efforts to create a photographic atlas of the sky.
2 3 18

Posts are pulled live from Bluesky and cached briefly. Posts with content labels are hidden.

View all posts on Bluesky

Explore trending tags

#art #oc #nsfw #furry #digitalart #artfight #furryart #fanart #artfight2026 #AI #photography #fcf
Back to all tags