History without Historicizing

One of the most important things which I have learned about process during my time studying history of science is that looking back, one must be careful not to be judgmental of the quality of past science. Despite something currently being considered wrong, it was at some point a fact. Just as former facts have come and gone, modern ones can do the same and therefore we cannot take our assumptions and apply them to other ages. This can come across in the tone used to describe something and likewise with the terms used. Last week, John discussed in class the coining of the term “scientist.” To us, this seems like about as basic a word as they come. One who performs art is called an artist; one who performs science is called a scientist. Yet, even this had to be invented. It was in 1833 that William Whewell first used the word, an umbrella term which was more general than the terms for people in certain fields. This neologism was coined just 4 years before Victoria was crowned queen, which adds to the appropriateness of studying Victorian “science” versus more individual or specific fields. Despite the existence of the term, however, there was not a sudden change in the scientific community, by which I mean that no such “scientific community” existed. There were guilds and societies for each of the specific fields but nothing that united them all. Thus, at what point did “scientist” go from being a word that was in existence to one that was in use? A jump into everyday terminology would be a big one to gap. At which point does “science” stop being an anachronism?