Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:49:16.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Falsification is the Wrong Paradigm for Evolutionary Epistemology: An Analysis of Hull's Selection Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Eugenie Gatens-Robinson
Eugenie Gatens-Robinson*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
*
‡Send reprint requests to the author, Department of Philosophy, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale, IL 62901-4505, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Contemporary empiricism has attempted to ground its analysis of science in a falsificationism based in selection theory. This paper links these evolutionary epistemologies with commitments to certain epistemological and ontological assumptions found in the later work of K. Popper, D. Campbell, and D. Hull. I argue that their assumptions about the character of contemporary empiricism are part of a shared paradigm of epistemological explanation which results in unresolved tensions within their own projects. I argue further that their claim to be doing a science of science is not defensible. Hull's selectionism is analyzed to show how this epistemological agenda has played itself out in late empiricism. I suggest some directions that Hull might take toward an historical epistemology.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 60 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 535 - 557
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I would like to thank Mark Johnson for his very helpful suggestions and calls for clarification in working out the arguments in this paper.

References

Bradie, M. (1986), “Assessing Evolutionary Epistemology”, Biology and Philosophy 1: 401–459.10.1007/BF00140962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D. (1960), “Blind Variation and Selective Retention in Creative Thought as in other Knowledge Processes”, The Psychological Review 67: 380–400.10.1037/h0040373CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, D. (1974), “Unjustified Variation and Selective Retention in Scientific Discovery”, in Ayala, F. T. and Dobzhansky, T. (eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Biology: Reduction and Related Problems. London: Macmillan Press, pp. 139–161.10.1007/978-1-349-01892-5_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D. (1987), “Evolutionary Epistemology”, in Radnitsky, G. and Bartley, W. W. III (eds.), Evolutionary Epistemology, Theory of Rationality and the Sociology of Knowledge. La Salle, IL: Open Court, pp. 47–89.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. (1990), “Plausible Co-Selection of Belief by Referent: All the Objectivity that is Possible”. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. and Palier, B. T. (1989), “Extending Evolutionary Epistemology to ‘Justifying’ Scientific Beliefs (A Sociological Rapprochement with a Fallibilist Perceptual Foundationalism?)”, in Hahlweg, K. and Hooker, C. A. (eds.), Issues in Evolutionary Epistemology. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 231–257.Google Scholar
Clark, A. J. (1984), “Evolutionary Epistemology and Ontological Realism”, Philosophical Quarterly 34: 482–490.10.2307/2219066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, J. ([1925] 1988), Experience and Nature, in J. A. Boydston (ed.), The Later Works of John Dewey, vol. 1. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Dupré, J. (1990), “Scientific Pluralism and the Plurality of the Sciences: Comment on David Hull's Science as Process”, Science as Process 69: 61–76.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. and Gould, S. J. (1972), “Punctuated Equilibrium: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism”, in Schopf, T. (ed.), Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper & Company, pp. 82–115.Google Scholar
Gatens-Robinson, E. (1991), “Dewey and the Feminist Successor Science Project”, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 27 (4): 417–433.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, M. T. (1974), “A Radical Solution to the Species Problem”, Systematic Zoology 23: 536–544.10.2307/2412471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, R. F. (1988), Enlightened Empiricism: An Examination of W. V. Quine's Theory of Knowledge. Tampa: University of South Florida Press.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. (1991), “Situated Knowledge: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective”, in Simian, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge, pp. 183–201.Google Scholar
Hobbes, T. ([1651]1961), The Leviathan. Edited by MacPherson, C. B. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1976), “Are Species Really Individuals?” Systematic Zoology 25: 174–191.10.2307/2412744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1978), “A Matter of Individuality”, Philosophy of Science 45: 335–360.10.1086/288811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1980), “Individuality and Selection”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 11: 311–332.10.1146/annurev.es.11.110180.001523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1984), “Historical Entities and Historical Narrative”, in Hookway, C. (ed.), Minds, Machines, and Evolution: Philosophical Studies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 17–42.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1988a), “A Mechanism and Its Metaphysics: An Evolutionary Account of Social and Conceptual Development in Science”, Biology and Philosophy 3: 123–155.10.1007/BF00140989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1988b), Science as Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226360492.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, W. and Graur, D. (1991), Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Munz, P. (1985), Our Knowledge of the Growth of Knowledge: Popper or Wittgenstein? London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1959), The Logic of Discovery. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1972a), “Conjectural Knowledge: My Solution of the Problem of Induction”, in Popper 1972b, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1972b), Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1984), “Evolutionary Epistemology”, in Pollard, J. W. (ed.), Evolutionary Theory Paths into the Future. London: Wiley & Sons, pp. 239–255.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1983a), “Why Reason Can't Be Naturalized”, in Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers, vol. 3. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, pp. 229–247.10.1017/CBO9780511625275.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1983b), “Why There Isn't a Ready Made World”, in Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers, vol. 3. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, pp. 205–228.10.1017/CBO9780511625275.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescher, N. (1977), Methodological Pragmatism: A Systems Theoretic Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. (1989), “The View from Somewhere: A Critical Defense of Evolutionary Epistemology”, in Hahlweg, K. and Hooker, C. A. (eds.), Issues in Evolutionary Epistemology. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 185–228.Google Scholar
Shimony, A. (1981), “Integral Epistemology”, in Brewer, M. and Collins, B. (eds.), Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 98–123.Google Scholar
Skagestad, P. (1978), “Taking Evolution Seriously: Critical Comments on D. T. Campbell's Evolutionary Epistemology”, Monist 61: 611–620.10.5840/monist197861441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, P. (1980), “Against Evolutionary Epistemology”, in Asquith, P. and Giere, R. (eds.), PSA 1980, vol. 1. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 187–196.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1972), Human Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar