A mechanism and its metaphysics: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Biology and Philosophy 3 (2):123-155 (1988)
The claim that conceptual systems change is a platitude. That our conceptual systems are theory-laden is no less platitudinous. Given evolutionary theory, biologists are led to divide up the living world into genes, organisms, species, etc. in a particular way. No theory-neutral individuation of individuals or partitioning of these individuals into natural kinds is possible. Parallel observations should hold for philosophical theories about scientific theories. In this paper I summarize a theory of scientific change which I set out in considerable detail in a book that I shall publish in the near future. Just as few scientists were willing to entertain the view that species evolve in the absence of a mechanism capable of explaining this change, so philosophers should be just as reticent about accepting a parallel view of conceptual systems in science evolving in the absence of a mechanism to explain this evolution. In this paper I set out such a mechanism. One reason that this task has seemed so formidable in the past is that we have all construed conceptual systems inappropriately. If we are to understand the evolution of conceptual systems in science, we must interpret them as forming lineages related by descent. In my theory, the notion of a family resemblance is taken literally, not metaphorically. In my book, I set out data to show that the mechanism which I propose is actually operative. In this paper, such data is assumed.
|Keywords||conceptual evolution scientific theories selection processes social organization of science|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Bence Nanay (2011). Popper's Darwinian Analogy. Perspectives on Science 19 (3):337-354.
Barbara Gabriella Renzi (2009). A Type Hierarchy of Selection Processes for the Evaluation of Evolutionary Analogies. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 40 (2):311 - 336.
Todd Grantham (1994). Does Science Have a “Global Goal?”: A Critique of Hull's View of Conceptual Progress. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 9 (1):85-97.
David Oldroyd (1990). David Hull's Evolutionary Model for the Progress and Process of Science. Biology and Philosophy 5 (4):473-487.
John Alroy & Alexander Levine (1994). Driving Both Ways: Wilson & Sober's Conflicting Criteria for the Identification of Groups as Vehicles of Selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17 (4):608.
Similar books and articles
Michael Bradie (1990). The Evolution of Scientific Lineages. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:245 - 254.
Pamela M. Henson (1988). A Short Note on Hull's “a Mechanism and its Metaphysics: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science”. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 3 (2):192-193.
David L. Hull (1982). Exemplars and Scientific Change. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:479 - 503.
James A. Blachowicz (1971). Systems Theory and Evolutionary Models of the Development of Science. Philosophy of Science 38 (2):178-199.
Juha Tuomi (1992). Evolutionary Synthesis: A Search for the Strategy. Philosophy of Science 59 (3):429-438.
Todd A. Grantham (2000). Evolutionary Epistemology, Social Epistemology, and the Demic Structure of Science. Biology and Philosophy 15 (3):443-463.
Kathia Laszlo, Alexander Laszlo, Carlos Romero & Marcia Campos (2003). Evolving Development: An Evolutionary Perspective on Development for an Interconnected World. World Futures 59 (2):105 – 119.
Xiang Chen & Peter Barker (2000). Continuity Through Revolutions: A Frame-Based Account of Conceptual Change During Scientific Revolutions. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):223.
Mark Bevir (2003). Notes Toward an Analysis of Conceptual Change. Social Epistemology 17 (1):55 – 63.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads25 ( #65,184 of 1,096,231 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #126,669 of 1,096,231 )
How can I increase my downloads?