Does science have a “global goal?”: A critique of Hull's view of conceptual progress [Book Review]

Biology and Philosophy 9 (1):85-97 (1994)
Hull's recent work in evolutionary epistemology is marred by a deep tension. While he maintains that conceptual and biological evolution are both driven by selection processes, he also claims that only the former is globally progressive. In this paper I formulate this tension and present four possible responses (including Hull's). I argue that Hull's position rests on the assumption that there is a goal which is sufficiently general to describe most scientific activity yet precise enough to guide research. Working from within Hull's framework, I argue that a non-progressionist stance is both preferable and more consistent with Hull's basic commitments.
Keywords Progress  evolutionary epistemology
Categories (categorize this paper)
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 13,009
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

View all 6 references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Similar books and articles
Brent D. Mishler (1990). Phylogenetic Analogies in the Conceptual Development of Science. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:225 - 235.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

16 ( #116,465 of 1,410,123 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #177,589 of 1,410,123 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.