Rock, Bone, and Ruin: A Trace-centric Appreciation

Abstract

Currie's expansive, practice-grounded account of how historical scientists "make their own [epistemic] luck" is a pivotal reset for philosophy of the historical sciences.I particularly welcome his arguments against the various forms of epistemic atomism that have inclined philosophers to an overstated pessimism about the epistemic status of fields whose subject domain is the past.Nonetheless I argue that there is more continuity between the evidenceconstituting strategies recognized by trace-centric theorists and the non-trace, "surrogative" streams of evidence to which Currie draws attention.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 7 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.