David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62 (4):805-829 (2011)
The epistemology of the historical sciences has been debated recently. Cleland argued that the effects of the past overdetermine it. Turner argued that the past is underdetermined by its effects because of the decay of information from the past. I argue that the extent of over- and underdetermination cannot be approximated by philosophical inquiry. It is an empirical question that each historical science attempts to answer. Philosophers should examine how paradigmatic cases of historical science handled underdetermination or utilized overdetermination. I analyze such a paradigmatic case, Darwin’s phylogenetic inferences. Darwin proceeded in three consecutive stages. The initial inference that there was some common cause of homologies was usually overdetermined. The final inference of the character traits of ancestor species was usually underdetermined. The second stage inference of the causal net that connected the species that share some common cause was inbetween. A comparison with Comparative Historical Linguistics demonstrates similar three stages of inference that move from the over- to the underdetermined
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jarrett Leplin (1997). The Underdetermination of Total Theories. Erkenntnis 47 (2):203-215.
Doren A. Recker (1987). Causal Efficacy: The Structure of Darwin's Argument Strategy in the Origin of Species. Philosophy of Science 54 (2):147-175.
P. D. Magnus (2005). Background Theories and Total Science. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):1064-1075.
Ernan McMullin (2013). The Inference That Makes Science. Zygon 48 (1):143-191.
Elliott Sober (1999). Modus Darwin. Biology and Philosophy 14 (2):253-278.
Alexander Bird (2005). Abductive Knowledge and Holmesian Inference. In Tamar Szabo Gendler John Hawthorne (ed.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology. Oxford University Press. 1--31.
Alexander Bird (2005). Abductive Knowledge and Holmesian Inference. In Tamar Szabo Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology. Oxford University Press. 1--31.
Curtis N. Johnson (2007). The Preface to Darwin's Origin of Species: The Curious History of the "Historical Sketch". [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Biology 40 (3):529 - 556.
C. Kenneth Waters (1986). Taking Analogical Inference Seriously: Darwin's Argument From Artificial Selection. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:502 - 513.
C. E. Cleland (2011). Prediction and Explanation in Historical Natural Science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62 (3):551-582.
Yemima Ben-Menahem (1990). The Inference to the Best Explanation. Erkenntnis 33 (3):319-44.
D. Turner (2000). The Functions of Fossils: Inference and Explanation in Functional Morphology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 31 (1):193-212.
James Mallet (2010). Why Was Darwin's View of Species Rejected by Twentieth Century Biologists? Biology and Philosophy 25 (4):497-527.
Raphael Scholl & Tim Räz (2013). Modeling Causal Structures. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 3 (1):115-132.
Added to index2011-07-19
Total downloads21 ( #95,997 of 1,692,502 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #108,508 of 1,692,502 )
How can I increase my downloads?