Alistair C. Crombie v delu Robert Grosseteste and the Origins of Experimental Science 1100-1700 podeli Grossetestu zasluge za vpliven napredek v metodologiji znanosti in eksperimentalni praksi. Skozi Grossetestova dela želi pokazati, da moderna znanost izhaja iz srednjeveške znanosti in da je le-ta po svoji metodološki in filozofski inspiraciji srednjeveška iznajdba. Grossetestov Commentarius in posteriorum anayliticorum libros, predstavlja Grossetestovo metodologijo ved ali znanosti, prikaže vlogo matematike v naravoslovnih vedah in njegovo razumevanje izkustva in preizkusa. Prispevek se osredotoča na zadnjo točko, na (...) Grossetestovo razumevanje izkustva in preizkusa. V nasprotju s Crombijem skuša avtorica pokazati, da Grossetestovega razumevanja izkustva in preizkusa, »eksperimenta«, ne moremo povezati s t. i. kontroliranim eksperimentom zgodnje moderne znanosti. Pri njem je namreč izkustveno, »eksperimentalno« opazovanje povezano z iluminacijo oz. razsvetljenjem. (shrink)

Scholarly attempts to analyze the history of science sometime suffer from an imprecise use of terms. In order to understand accurately how science has developed and from where it draws its roots, researchers should be careful to recognize that epistemic regimes change over time and acceptable forms of knowledge production are contingent upon the hegemonic discourse informing the epistemic regime of any given period. In order to understand the importance of this point, I apply the techniques of historical epistemology to (...) an analysis of the place of the study of astrology in the medieval and early modern periods alongside a discussion of the “language games” of these period as well as the role of the “archeology of knowledge” in uncovering meaning in our study of the past. In sum, I argue that the term “science” should never be used when studying approaches to knowledge formation prior to the seventeenth century. (shrink)