Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:02:15.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exemplars and Scientific Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

David L. Hull
David L. Hull*
Affiliation:
The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A recurrent theme in the “new philosophy of science” is the importance of temporally extended conceptual entities termed variously disciplinary matrixes (Kuhn 1970), research programs (Lakatos 1970), scientific disciplines (Toulmin 1972), theories (McMullin 1976), and research traditions (Laudan 1977). Each of these macro-conceptual entities contains a rich heterogeneity of constituent elements. For example, Kuhn's (1970, pp. 183-187) disciplinary matrixes (“paradigm” in his global sense) include symbolic generalizations, metaphysical views, models, values, and exemplars as concrete problem solutions (“paradigm” in the narrow sense). All of the conceptual entities listed above are “historical entities” or “continuants”, the sorts of things that can change through time. Toulmin (1972) and Laudan (1977) permit total changeover in elements just so long as the transformation is gradual and the system remains cohesive in the process. Others, such as Lakatos (1970), insist on the retention of a “hard core” of some kind.

Type
Part X. Scientific Change And Evolutionary Biology
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1982 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1982 , 1982 , pp. 478 - 503
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 Philosophy of Science Association

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

1

I wish to thank John Corliss, Ernst Mayr, and Christopher Meacham for clarifying certain aspects of the type specimen method.

References

Campbell, D. (1979). “Comments on the Sociology of Ethics and Moralizing.” Behavioural Science 24: 37-45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Candolle, A.P. (1813). Théorie élémentaire de la Botaniaue. Paris: Detréville.Google Scholar
Churchill, F.R. (1968). “August Weismann and a Break from Tradition.” Journal of the History of Biology 1: 91-112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchill, F.R. (1978). “The Weismann-Spencer Controversy over the Inheritance of Acquired Characters.” In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of the History of Scienoe. Pages 451-468.Google Scholar
Darwin, Ch. (1859). The Origin of Species. London: John Murray. (As reprinted Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. and Gould, S.J. (1972). “Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism.” In Models in Paleobiology. Edited by Schopf, T.J.M.. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper & Co. Pages 82-115.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, M.T. (1981). “Categories, Life, and Thinking.” The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4: 269-313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, R. (1940). The Material Basis of Evolution. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gould, S.J. (1982). “Darwinism and the Expansion of Evolutionary Theory.” Science 216: 380-387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeckel, E. (1866). Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Berlin: G. Reiner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heise, H. and Starr, M.P. (1968). “Nomenifers: Are they Christened or Classified?” Systematic Zoology 17: 458-467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennig, W. (1966). Phylogenetic Systeaatics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Herbert, S. (1980). “The Red Notebook of Charles Darwin.” Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Historical Series, 7. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hodge, M.J.S. (1983). Darwin and Natural Selection: His Methods and His Methodology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Hull, D.L. (1981). “The Principles of Biological Classification: The Use and Abuse of Philosophy.” In PSA 1978. Volume 2. Edited by Asquith, P.D. and Hacking, I.. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association. Pages 130-153.Google Scholar
Jevons, W.S. (1892). The Principles of Science. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1978). “Theories, Theorists and Theoretical Change. The Philosophical Review 87: 519-547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohn, D. (1980). “Theories to Work by: Rejected Theories, Reproduction, and Darwin's Path to Natural Selection.”: Studies in the History of Biology 4: 67-170.Google Scholar
Kottler, M.J. (1980). “Darwin, Wallace, and the Origin of sexual Dimorphism.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 124: 203-226.Google Scholar
Kripke, S.A. (1972). “Naming and Necessity.” In Semantics and Natural Language. Edited by Davidson, D. and Harman, G.. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Pages 253-355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1977). “Second Thoughts on Paradigms.” In The Structure of Scientific Theories. 2nd ed. Edited by Suppe, F.. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Pages 459-482.Google Scholar
Lack, D. (1947). Darwin's Finches: An Essay on the General Biological Theory of Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1970). “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited by Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pages 91-196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and Its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lyell, Ch. (1830-1833). Principles of Geology. 3-vols. London: Murray.Google Scholar
MacLeod, R. (1970). “The X-Club: A Scientific Network in Late Victorian England.” Notes and Records of the Roval Society of London 24: 305-322.Google Scholar
Matthew, P. (1831). Nayal Timbre and Arboriculture. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Mayr, E.; Linsley, E.G.; and Usinger, R. (1953). Methods and Principles of Systematic Zoology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Matthew, P. (1969). Principles of Systematic Zoology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Matthew, P. (1982). The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McCartney, P.J. (1976). “Charles Lyell and G.B. Brocchi: A Study in Comparative Historiography.” The British Journal for the History of Soience 11: 175-189.Google Scholar
McMullin, E. (1976). “The Fertility of Theory and the Unit for Appraisal in Science.” In Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos. (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume XXXIX.) Edited by Cohen, R.S. et al. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Pages 395-432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J.S. (1843). A System of Logic. London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
Mill, J.S. (1872). A System of Logic. 8th ed. London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. and Platnick, N. (1981). Svstematics and Bioeeographv: Cladistics and Vicariance. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ospovat, D. (1981). The Development of Darwin's Theory. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Palter, R. (1974). “Philosophy of Science, History of Science, and Science Education.” In PSA 1974. (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume XXXII.) Edited by Cohen, R.S. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Pages 313-321.Google Scholar
Popper, K.R. (1972). Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1973). “Meaning and Reference.” Journal of Philosophy 7: 699-711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975). “The Meaning of ‘Meaning’.” In Language, Hind, and Knowledge. (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Volume VII.) Edited by Gunderson, K.. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Pages 131-193.Google Scholar
Randall, J.E., and Nelson, G. (1979). “Scarus japanensis, S. ouovi and S. iserti— Valid names for Parrotfishes Presently Known as Scapistratoides, S. blochii and S. croicensis.” Copeia 1979: 206-212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, R. (1982). “The Emergence of Evolutionary Biology of Behaviour in the Early Nineteenth Century.” The British Journal for the History of Science 15: 241-280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, M. (1979). The Darwinian Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, G.G. (1940). :“Types in Modern Taxonomy.” American Journal of Science 238: 413-431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G.G. (1915). “The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals.” (Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. Volume 85.) New York: American Museum of Natural History.Google Scholar
Strickland, H.E. (1842). “Report of a Committee Appointed ‘to Consider of the Rules by which the Nomenclature of Zoology May be Established on a Uniform and Permanent Basis1.” Report of the 12th Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science 2: 105-121.Google Scholar
Sulloway, F.J. (1982). “Darwin and His Finches: The Evolution of a Legend.” Journal of the History of Biology 15: 1-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppe, F. (1977). “Exemplars, Theories, and Disciplinary Matrixes.” In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Edited by Suppe, F.. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, Pages 483-499.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1972). Human Understanding. Princeton: Princeton university Press.Google Scholar
Wallace, A.R. (1855). “On the Law which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species.” Annals and Magazine of Natural History 16: 184-196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whewell, Wm. (1847). The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, Founded upon Their History. 2 vols., 2nd ed. London: John Parker.Google Scholar
Whewell, Wm. (1853). Of the Plurality of Worlds. London: John Parker.Google Scholar
Williams, C.B. (1940). “On ‘Type’ Specimens.” Annals Entomological Society of America 33: 621-624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yule, G.U. (1906). “On the Theory of Inheritance of Quantitative Characters on the Basis of Mendel's Laws—A Preliminary Note.” In Report of the 3rd International Conference of Genetics. Edited by Wilks, W.. London: Royal Horticultural Society. Pages 140-142.Google Scholar