Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science
University of Chicago Press (2010)
Abstract
"Legend is overdue for replacement, and an adequate replacement must attend to the process of science as carefully as Hull has done. I share his vision of a serious account of the social and intellectual dynamics of science that will avoid both the rosy blur of Legend and the facile charms of relativism.... Because of [Hull's] deep concern with the ways in which research is actually done, Science as a Process begins an important project in the study of science. It is one of a distinguished series of books, which Hull himself edits."—Philip Kitcher, Nature "In Science as a Process, [David Hull] argues that the tension between cooperation and competition is exactly what makes science so successful.... Hull takes an unusual approach to his subject. He applies the rules of evolution in nature to the evolution of science, arguing that the same kinds of forces responsible for shaping the rise and demise of species also act on the development of scientific ideas."—Natalie Angier, New York Times Book Review "By far the most professional and thorough case in favour of an evolutionary philosophy of science ever to have been made. It contains excellent short histories of evolutionary biology and of systematics (the science of classifying living things); an important and original account of modern systematic controversy; a counter-attack against the philosophical critics of evolutionary philosophy; social-psychological evidence, collected by Hull himself, to show that science does have the character demanded by his philosophy; and a philosophical analysis of evolution which is general enough to apply to both biological and historical change."—Mark Ridley, Times Literary Supplement "Hull is primarily interested in how social interactions within the scientific community can help or hinder the process by which new theories and techniques get accepted.... The claim that science is a process for selecting out the best new ideas is not a new one, but Hull tells us exactly how scientists go about it, and he is prepared to accept that at least to some extent, the social activities of the scientists promoting a new idea can affect its chances of being accepted."—Peter J. Bowler, Archives of Natural History "I have been doing philosophy of science now for twenty-five years, and whilst I would never have claimed that I knew everything, I felt that I had a really good handle on the nature of science, Again and again, Hull was able to show me just how incomplete my understanding was.... Moreover, [Science as a Process] is one of the most compulsively readable books that I have ever encountered."—Michael Ruse, Biology and Philosophy.ISBN(s)
0226360504 cloth 9780226360492 0226360490 0226360512 0226360504
My notes
Similar books and articles
Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science by David L. Hull; The Metaphysics of Evolution by David L. Hull.Garland Allen - 1991 - Isis 82:698-704.
Evolutionary epistemology, social epistemology, and the demic structure of science.Todd A. Grantham - 2000 - Biology and Philosophy 15 (3):443-463.
Epistemology or not? An inquiry into David Hull's evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science.Kai Hahlweg - 1988 - Biology and Philosophy 3 (2):187-192.
Is science an evolutionay process? Evidence from miscitation of the scientific literature.Kim J. Vicente - 2000 - Perspectives on Science 8 (1):53-69.
A short note on Hull's “a mechanism and its metaphysics: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science”. [REVIEW]Pamela M. Henson - 1988 - Biology and Philosophy 3 (2):192-193.
The Function of Credit in Hull's Evolutionary Model of Science.Noretta Koertge - 1990 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:237 - 244.
An evolutionary account of science: A response to Rosenberg's critical notice. [REVIEW]David L. Hull - 1992 - Biology and Philosophy 7 (2):229-236.
Phylogenetic Analogies in the Conceptual Development of Science.Brent D. Mishler - 1990 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:225-235.
A mechanism and its metaphysics: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. [REVIEW]David L. Hull - 1988 - Biology and Philosophy 3 (2):123-155.
Comparisons of cognitive development, science process skills, and attitude toward science among Republic of China preservice teachers with different science backgrounds.Tien‐Ying Lee - 1993 - Science Education 77 (6):625-636.
The Success of Science and Social Norms.David L. Hull - 2001 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 23 (3/4):341 - 360.
Analytics
Added to PP
2015-02-02
Downloads
18 (#614,987)
6 months
6 (#133,567)
2015-02-02
Downloads
18 (#614,987)
6 months
6 (#133,567)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Is Peer Review a Good Idea?Remco Heesen & Liam Kofi Bright - 2021 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 72 (3):635-663.
Why the Reward Structure of Science Makes Reproducibility Problems Inevitable.Remco Heesen - 2018 - Journal of Philosophy 115 (12):661-674.
Epistemic Landscapes and the Division of Cognitive Labor.Michael Weisberg & Ryan Muldoon - 2009 - Philosophy of Science 76 (2):225-252.
Scientific kinds.Marc Ereshefsky & Thomas A. C. Reydon - 2015 - Philosophical Studies 172 (4):969-986.
Neither Logical Empiricism nor Vitalism, but Organicism: What the Philosophy of Biology Was.Daniel J. Nicholson & Richard Gawne - 2015 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 37 (4):345-381.