This article offers a critical review of past attempts and possible methods to test philosophical models of science against evidence from history of science. Drawing on methodological debates in social science, I distinguish between quantitative and qualitative approaches. I show that both have their uses in history and philosophy of science, but that many writers in this domain have misunderstood and misapplied these approaches, and especially the method of case studies. To test scientific realism, for example, quantitative methods are more effective than case studies. I suggest that greater methodological clarity would enable the project of integrated history and philosophy of science to make renewed progress.

中文翻译：

---

用历史作为科学哲学的证据：一种方法论上的批判

本文对过去的尝试和可能的方法进行了批判性的回顾，这些尝试和方法是根据科学史的证据来测试科学的哲学模型。利用社会科学中的方法论辩论，我区分了定量方法和定性方法。我证明两者都在历史和科学哲学中都有用，但是这个领域的许多作家都误解了这些方法，特别是案例研究的方法。例如，要检验科学现实主义，定量方法比案例研究更为有效。我建议提高方法的清晰度将使融合历史和科学哲学的项目能够取得新的进展。