ABSTRACT
Thirty years after the publication of Pannekoek’s 1953 paper on the history of the discovery of Neptune, it was cited as an early forerunner of the strong programme in the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. This recognition, however, was achieved by laying Pannekoek’s paper on a Procrustean bed. On close inspection we find that Pannekoek’s approach to history accords best with Merton’s sociology of knowledge. Thus, Pannekoek gained a reputation as an important innovator in historiography of science for the wrong reasons. This paper offers a much-needed correction, which facilitates a more precise evaluation of the innovative aspects of Pannekoek’s historical work, especially with respect to the effect of external factors on the course of science.
