A dearth of historians of science?

[pauamma]

This preprint article about the nomenclature of astronomical objects, as far as I can tell, is about the history of uneasy coexistence between the taxonomy of astronomical bodies used by planetary scientists and that used by everyone else, and how they bleed into or gain prominence over each other. They cite cognitive scientists and philosophers of science abundantly, but not a single historian that I can see (nor is any of the authors a historian. Instead, they seem to rely a lot on primary sources. I'm not remotely familiar with methods in history, but this sounds bad to me. Am I missing something?

Comments

[sara]

Better for everyone. It's fine to read someone else's interpretation but not to the exclusion of primary documents.

[pauamma]

*nods* Thanks again.