Histories of science are doubly Eurocentric in scope and in authorship

Evidence

First, the histories of science upon which philosophies of science and theories of knowledge depend have been doubly Eurocentric. In reporting the history of science, they have reported only the history of European sciences, and only as that history is understood by “the natives,” that is, those groups of Europeans who have most benefited from the development of modern sciences in Europe. Such histories have encouraged philosophies of science to avoid the disinterested, objective, criticism of this particular range of their own assumptions that these philosophies otherwise recommend for advancing the growth of knowledge, scientific and philosophic. Thus the purportedly universally valid standards for what counts as science, as good method, as objective and value-free research, as human progress, have themselves been permitted to be permeated by ethnocentric assumptions. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1594

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines what ‘doubly Eurocentric’ means: only European sciences are reported, and only from the perspective of the European groups who benefited most.
• XREF: connects to: The decline-of-Islamic-science narrative is a Eurocentric fabrication.