David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Perspectives on Science 8 (1):53-69 (2000)
: This article describes a psychological test of Hull's (1988) theory of science as an evolutionary process by seeing if it can account for how scientists sometimes remember and cite the scientific literature. The conceptual adequacy of Hull's theory was evaluated by comparing it to Bartlett's (1932) seminal theory of human remembering. Bartlett found that remembering is an active, reconstructive process driven by a schema that biases recall in the direction of proto- typicality and personal involvement. This account supports Hull's theory of science because it shows that the characteristics of reconstructive remembering are consistent with the generic properties of an evolutionary process. The empirical adequacy of Hull's theory was evaluated by comparing the predictions made from this evolutionary viewpoint against evidence from the history of science. Six cases studies of well-known psychological experiments that had been subject to repeated miscitation errors were collected and reviewed. All six case studies revealed a systematic pattern of distortions that is consistent with the schema-induced biases of reconstructive remembering. These findings support Hull's claim that science is an evolutionary process with scientists as interactors, scientific beliefs as replicators, and schemata as means for that replication
|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
G. D. Logan (1987). Toward an Instance Theory of Automatization. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 25 (5):342-342.
John B. Watson & Rosalie Rayner (1920). Conditioned Emotional Reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 3 (1):1.
David L. Hull (1998). Studying the Study of Science Scientifically. Perspectives on Science 6 (3):209-231.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jane Maienschein (2000). ``Why Study History for Science?''. Biology and Philosophy 15 (3):339-348.
Eugenie Gatens-Robinson (1993). Why Falsification is the Wrong Paradigm for Evolutionary Epistemology: An Analysis of Hull's Selection Theory. Philosophy of Science 60 (4):535-557.
Elisabeth A. Lloyd (2000). Groups on Groups: Some Dynamics and Possible Resolution of the Units of Selection Debates in Evolutionary Biology. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 15 (3):389-401.
David L. Hull (2001). Science and Selection: Essays on Biological Evolution and the Philosophy of Science. Cambridge University Press.
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.
William F. Brewer & Bruce L. Lambert (2001). The Theory-Ladenness of Observation and the Theory-Ladenness of the Rest of the Scientific Process. Philosophy of Science 3 (September):S176-S186.
Michael Bradie (1990). The Evolution of Scientific Lineages. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:245 - 254.
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.
Todd A. Grantham (2000). Evolutionary Epistemology, Social Epistemology, and the Demic Structure of Science. Biology and Philosophy 15 (3):443-463.
Alex Rosenberg (1992). Selection and Science: Critical Notice of David Hull's Science as a Process. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 7 (2):217-228.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #248,908 of 1,725,958 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #167,084 of 1,725,958 )
How can I increase my downloads?