Maybe it is just me, but I do not understand how someone could call them self a historian of a particular science, but not have actually practiced, in detail, the science. On page 23 of Helge Kragh's The Historiography of Science, she shares this statement made by Pearce Williams: The modern historian of science is primarily a historian and hence need not master the technical aspects of the science he is studying. The focus should be on the historical and social relations while the technical details are of minor importance. I have always know historians to be experts on the topic they study. I really do not see how anyone could consider them self a historian without trying to learn as much as possible about the topic, including the technical aspects. If a historian told me "the technical details are of minor importance", I would think that they were joking or not a real historian.
