I want to make the argument that, in so jangled a history of historiography, there should be a pride of place, such as it might be, for the traditional discipline of philosophy, as a meta discipline, regardless of how naarrowed and specialized as Clark asserts it has now become.
He cites Locke's under labourer theory of philosophy, ostensibly with approval, but ironically, for his own work here.
This had been a passage quoted by Peter Winch in The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy.
Nevertheless, ultimately, there is less point in doing such a truly stellar job of clearing the ground, for natural science, or for anything else, for that matter, in order to disclose a clearer and more accurate account of history warts and all, if there is not, somehow, some higher purpose or purposes to be served than admittedly doing very great critical and reconstuctive historiography.
