That might be true! Maybe my main takeaway from those articles is that to be a good math/​science historian, you have to be good at history (by reading a bunch of primary sources) and good at math/​science (like be able to solve concrete problems), and that there are a bunch of people who only know one of the things, and only a few that know both.
That might be true! Maybe my main takeaway from those articles is that to be a good math/​science historian, you have to be good at history (by reading a bunch of primary sources) and good at math/​science (like be able to solve concrete problems), and that there are a bunch of people who only know one of the things, and only a few that know both.