Community Historians and the Dilemma of Rigor vs Relevance: A Comment on Danziger and Van Rappard

Since the transition from finalism to contextualism, the history of science seems to be caught up in a basic dilemma. Many historians fear that with the new contextualist standards of rigorous historiography, historical research can no longer be relevant to working scientists themselves. The present article argues that this `dilemma of rigor vs relevance' is particularly urgent to `community' historians affiliated with the very scientific communities whose history they study. The solutions of Kurt Danziger and J. F. Hans van Rappard, both community historians of psychology, are discussed, and the author adds her own community historian's views for debate. These include, that there are no cogent reasons for completely rejecting finalism, but that, at present, rigorous symmetrical contextualism actually is the best way to produce relevant results. It is also argued that the common tale of scientists only tolerating congenial histories might be largely based on misinterpretations.