Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 149–158 | Cite as

Reports from the high table

Sepkoski and Ruse (eds): The paleobiological revolution: essays on the growth of modern paleontology, University of Chicago Press, 2009
Book Review
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
  • 113 Downloads

Abstract

David Sepkoski and Michael Ruse’s edited collection The Peolobiological Revolution covers the changes in paleontological science in the last half-century. The collection should be of interest to philosophers of science (particularly those interested in non-reductive unity) as well as historians. I give an overview of the content and major themes of the volume and draw some lessons for the philosophy of science along the way. In particular, I argue that the history of paleontology demands a new approach to philosophical delineation of sciences.

Keywords

Paleontology Unity Paleobiology Integration Revolution 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Brigandt I (2010) Beyond reduction and pluralism: toward an epistemology of explanatory integration in biology. Erkenn 73:295–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Calcott B (2011) Wimsatt and the robustness family: review of Wimsatt’s re-engineering philosophy for limited beings. Biol Philos. doi: 10.1007/s10539-010-9202-x
  3. Dardley L, Maull N (1977) Interfield theories. Philos Sci 44(1):43–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eldredge N, Gould SJ (1972) Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schpf TJM (ed) Models in paleobiology. Freeman Cooper, San Francisco, pp 82–115Google Scholar
  5. Gould SJ (2002) The structure of evolutionary theory. Harvard University Press, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  6. Gould S, Eldrege N (1977) Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology 3(2):115–151Google Scholar
  7. Gould SJ, Lewontin RC (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 205(1161):581–598Google Scholar
  8. Gould SJ, Raup DM, Sepkoski JJ, Schopf TJM, Simberloff DS (1977) The shape of evolution; a comparison of real and random clades. Paleobiology 3(1):23–40Google Scholar
  9. Jeffares B (2008) Testing times: regularities in the historical sciences. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 39:469–475Google Scholar
  10. Kuhn T (1996) The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd edn. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  11. Love AC (2006) Explaining evolutionary innovations and novelties: criteria of explanatory adequacy and epistemological prerequisites. Philos Sci 75(5):874–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McCauley RN (2009) Time is of the essence: explanatory pluralism and accommodating theories about long-term processes. Philos Psychol 22(5):611–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Oppenheim P, Putnam H (1958) Unity of science as a working hypothesis. Minnesota Stud Philos Sci 2(2):3–36Google Scholar
  14. Potochnik A (2010) A neurathian conception of the unity of science. Erkenntnis. doi: 10.1007/s10670-010-9228-0
  15. Sepkoski J, Bambach RK, Raup DM, Valentine JW (1981) Phanerozoic marine diversity and the fossil record. Nature 293:435–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Simpson GG (1994) Tempo and mode in evolution. Colombia Biology Series No. 15. Colombia University PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Weisberg M (2007) Who is a modeler? Brit J Philos Sci 58:207–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wimsatt WC (1994) The ontology of complex systems: levels of organization, prespectives, and causal thickets. In: Matthen M, Ware R (eds) Canadian Journal of Philosophy, supp. vol #20Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RSSS, Australia National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations