Advertisement

Journal of the History of Biology

, Volume 44, Issue 4, pp 745–780 | Cite as

A Web of Controversies: Complexity in the Burgess Shale Debate

  • Christian BaronEmail author
Article

Abstract

Using the Burgess Shale controversies as a case-study, this paper argues that controversies within different domains may interact as to create a situation of “com- plicated intricacies,” where the practicing scientist has to navigate through a context of multiple thought collectives. To some extent each of these collectives has its own dynamic complete with fairly negotiated standards for investigation and explanation, theoretical background assumptions and certain peculiarities of practice. But the intellectual development in one of these collectives may “spill over” having far reaching consequences for the treatment of apparently independent epistemic problems that are subject of investigation in other thought collectives. For the practicing scientist it is necessary to take this complex web of interactions into account in order to be able to navigate in such a situation. So far most studies of academic science have had a tendency to treat the practicing scientist as members of a single (enclosed) thought collective that stands intellectually isolated from other similar entities unless the discipline was in a state of crisis of paradigmatic proportions. The richness and complexity of Burgess Shale debate shows that this encapsulated kind of analysis is not enough.

Keywords

contingency evolution fossils arthropods paleontology Burgess Shale controversy interaction weird wonders 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baron, Christian. 2009. “Epistemic Values in the Burgess Shale Debate.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 40: 286–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowler, Peter J. 1983. The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades Around 1900. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Briggs, Derek E.G. 1978. “The Morphology, Mode of Life, and Affinities of Canadaspis perfecta (Crustacea, Phyllocarida), Middle Cambrian, Burgess Shale, British Columbia.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 281: 439–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Briggs, Derek E.G. 1990. “Early Arthropods: Dampening the Cambrian Explosion.” Paleobiology 3: 24–43.Google Scholar
  5. Briggs, Derek E.G. and Fortey, Richard. 1989. “The Early Radiation and Relationships of Major Arthropod Groups.” Science 246: 241–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Briggs, Derek E.G., Fortey, Richard and Wills, Matthew A. 1992a. “Morphological Disparity in the Cambrian.” Science 256: 1670–1673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Briggs, Derek E.G., Fortey, Richard, and Wills, Matthew A. 1992b. “Cambrian and Recent Morphological Disparity [Reply to Foote and Gould. 1992].” Science 258: 1817–1818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Briggs, Derek E.G., Erwin, Douglas H. and Collier, Frederick J. 1994. The Fossils of the Burgess Shale. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brysse, Keynyn. 2008. “From Weird Wonders to Stem Lineages: The Second Reclassification of the Burgess Shale Fauna.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 39: 298–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen, J.Y., Oliveri, P., Li, C.W., Zhou, G.Q., Gao, F., Hagadorn, J.W., Peterson, K.J. and Davidson, E.H. 2000. “Precambrian Animal Diversity: Putative Phosphatized Embryos from the Doushanto Formation of China.” Science 97: 4457–4462.Google Scholar
  11. Collins, H. and Pinch, Trevor. 1993. The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Conway Morris, Simon. 1976a. “Nectocaris peryx, a New Organism from the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale of British Columbia.” Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie 12: 705–713.Google Scholar
  13. Conway Morris, Simon. 1976b. “A New Cambrian Lophophorate from the Burgess Shale of British Columbia.” Palaeontology 19: 199–222.Google Scholar
  14. Conway Morris, Simon. 1977a. “A Redescription of the Middle Cambrian Worm Amiskwia saggittiformis Walcott from the Burgess Shale of British Columbia.” Paläontologische Zeitschrift 51: 271–287.Google Scholar
  15. Conway Morris, Simon. 1977b. “A New Metazoan from the Cambrian Burgess Shale of British Columbia.” Palaeontology 20: 623–640.Google Scholar
  16. Conway Morris, Simon. 1977c. “A New Entoproct-Like Organism from the Burgess Shale of British Columbia.” Palaeontology 20: 833–845.Google Scholar
  17. Conway Morris, Simon. 1979. “The Burgess Shale (Middle Cambrian) Fauna.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 10: 327–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Conway Morris, Simon. 1985a. “The Middle Cambrian Metazoan Wiwaxia corrugata (Matthew) from the Burgess Shale and Ogygopsis Shale, British Columbia, Canada.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 307: 507–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Conway Morris, Simon. 1985b. “Non-Skeletalized Lower Invertebrate Fossils: A Review.” S. Conway Morris, J.D. George, R. Gibson and H.M. Platt (eds.), The Origins and Relationships of Lower Invertebrates. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  20. Conway Morris, Simon. 1986. “The Community Structure of the Middle Cambrian Phyllopod Bed (Burgess Shale).” Palaeontology 29: 423–467.Google Scholar
  21. Conway Morris, Simon. 1989. “Burgess Shale Faunas and the Cambrian Explosion.” Science 246: 339–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Conway Morris, Simon. 1998. The Crucible of Creation: The Burgess Shale and the Rise of Animals. Oxford:Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Conway Morris, Simon and Whittington, Harry B. 1979. “The Animals of the Burgess Shale.” Scientific American 240: 122–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Conway Morris, Simon and Gould, Stephen J. 1998. “Showdown on the Burgess Shale.” Natural History Magazine 107(10): 48–55.Google Scholar
  25. Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  26. Daston, Lorraine J. 1995. “The Moral Economy of Science.” Osiris 10: 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Eldredge, Niles. 1971. “The Allopatric Model and Phylogeny in Paleozoic Invertebrates.” Evolution 25: 156–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eldredge, Niles and Gould, Stephen J. 1972. “Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism.” J.M. Schopf Thomas (ed.), Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper & Company, pp. 82–115.Google Scholar
  29. Engelhardt, H. Tristram Jr. and Caplan, Arthur L. (eds.). 1987. Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Fleck, Ludwig. 1935/1979. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. London/Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Foote, Mike. 1993. “Discordance and Concordance Between Morphological and Taxonomic Diversity.” Paleobiology 19: 185–204.Google Scholar
  32. Foote, Mike and Gould, Stephen J. 1992. ‘“Cambrian and Recent Morphological Disparity’ [Reply to Briggs et al. (1992a)].” Science 258: 1816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fortey, Richard. 1998. “Shock Lobsters: Book Review: The Crucible of Creation: The Burgess Shale and the Rise of Animals” London Review of Books 20: 24–25.Google Scholar
  34. Fortey, Richard, Briggs, Derek E.G. and Wills, Matthew A. 1996. “The Cambrian Evolutionary ‘Explosion’: Decoupling Cladogenesis from Morphological Disparity.” Biological Journal of Linnean Society 57: 13–33.Google Scholar
  35. Fortey, Richard, Briggs, Derek E.G. and Wills, Matthew A. 1997. “The Cambrian Evolutionary ‘Explosion’ Recalibrated.” BioEssay 19: 429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Foucault, Michel. 1966/1994. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of Human Sciences. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  37. Gingerich, Philip D. 1974. “Stratigragraphic Record of Early Eocene Hyopsodus and the Geometry of Mammalian Phylogeny.” Nature 248: 107–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gingerich, Philip D. 1976. “Paleontology and Phylogeny: Patterns of Evolution at the Species Level in Early Tertiary Mammals.” American Journal of Science 276: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Glaessner, Martin F. 1984. The Dawn of Animal Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Gould, Stephen J. 1980a. “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” Paleobiology 6: 119–130.Google Scholar
  41. Gould, Stephen J. 1980b. “The Promise of Paleobiology as a Nomothetic Discipline.” Paleobiology 6: 96–118.Google Scholar
  42. Gould, Stephen J. 1989. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. New York: W. W Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  43. Gould, Stephen J. 1991. “The Disparity of the Burgess Shale Arthropod Fauna and the Limits of Cladistic Analysis: Why We Must Strive to Quantify Morphospace.” Paleobiology 17: 411–423.Google Scholar
  44. Gould, Stephen J. 1993. “How to Analyse the Burgess Shale Disparity – A Reply to Ridley.” Paleobiology 19: 522–523.Google Scholar
  45. Gould, Stephen J. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Gould, Stephen J. and Eldredge, Niles. 1977. “Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered.” Paleobiology 3: 115–151.Google Scholar
  47. Gould, S.J. and Lewontin, R.C. 1979. “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme.” Proceedings of the Royal Society London Series B 205: 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hacking, Ian. 2002. Historical Ontology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Hennig, Willi. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  50. House, M.R. 1979. “Discussion on Origin of Major Invertebrate Groups.” M.R. House (ed.), The Origin of Major Invertebrate Groups. London: Academic Press Inc., pp. 479–494.Google Scholar
  51. Hull, David L. 1988. Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  52. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  53. Lee, Michael S.Y. 1992. “‘Cambrian and Recent Morphological Disparity’ [Reply to Briggs et al. (1992a)].” Science 258: 1816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lewontin, Richard C. 1974. The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. New York/London: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Lloyd, Elisabeth A. and Gould, Stephen J. 1993. “Species Selection on Variability.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 90: 595–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Manton, Sidnie M. 1977. The Arthropoda: Habits, Functional Morphology and Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Manton, Sidnie M. and Anderson, Donald T. 1979. “Polyphyly and the Evolution of the Arthropods.” M.R. House (ed.), The Origin of Major Invertebrate Groups. London: Academic Press Inc., pp. 269–321.Google Scholar
  58. Mayr, Ernst. 1954. “Change of Genetic Environment and Evolution.” A.C. Julian Huxley and E.B. Ford Hardy (eds.), Evolution as a Process. London: Allen & Unwin, pp. 157–180.Google Scholar
  59. Mayr, Ernst. 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Newman, Stuart A. and Müller, Gerd B. 2006. “Genes and Form: Inherency in the Evolution of Developmental Mechanisms.” E.M. Neumann-Held and C. Rehmann-Sutter (eds.), Genes in Development: Re-Reading the Molecular Paradigm. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 38–73.Google Scholar
  61. Ramsköld, Lars and Hou, Xianguang. 1991. “New Early Cambrian Animal and Onychophoran Affinities of Enigmatic Metazoans.” Nature 351: 225–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Raup, David and Gould, Stephen J. 1974. “Stochastic Simulation and Evolution of Morphology: Towards a Nomothetic Paleontology.” Systematic Zoology 23: 525–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ridley, Mark. 1993. “Analysis of the Burgess Shale.” Paleobiology 19: 519–521.Google Scholar
  64. Ridley, Mark. 1996. Evolution, 2nd edn. London: Blackwell Science, Inc.Google Scholar
  65. Rowland, Stephen M. 2001. “Archaeocyaths – a History of Phylogenetic Interpretation.” Journal of Paleontology 75(6): 1065–1078.Google Scholar
  66. Rudwick, Martin. 1985. The Great Devonian Controversy: The Shaping of Scientific Knowledge Among Gentlemanly Specialists. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  67. Ruse, Michael. 2000. “The Theory of Punctuated Equilibria: Taking Apart a Scientific Controversy.” P. Machamer, M. Pera and A. Baltas (eds.), Scientific Controversies: Philosophical and Historical Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 231–253.Google Scholar
  68. Schopf, Thomas J.M. 1972. “Introduction: About This Book.” J.M. Schopf Thomas (ed.), Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper & Company, pp. 3–7.Google Scholar
  69. Schram, Frederick R. 1993. “The British School: Calman, Cannon and Manton and Their Effect on Carcinology in the English Speaking World.” Frederick R. Schram and F. Truesdale (eds.), Crustacean Issues 8: History of Carcinology. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, pp. 321–348.Google Scholar
  70. Schuh, Randall T. 2000. Biological Systematics: Principles and Applications. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Seilacher, Adolf. 1984. “Late Precambrian Metazoa: Preservational or Real Extinctions?” H.D. Holland and A.F. Trendall (eds.), Patterns of Change in Earth Evolution. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Segerstråle, Ullica. 2000. Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Seilacher, Adolf, Bose, Pradip K. and Pflüger, Fridriech. 1998. “Triploblastic Animals: More Than 1 Billion Years Ago: Trace Fossil Evidence from India.” Science 282: 80–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sepkoski, David. 2005. “Stephen Jay Gould, Jack Sepkoski and the ‘Quantitative Revolution’ in American Paleontology.” Journal of History of Biology 38: 209–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Shapin, Steven and Schaffer, Simon. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Stanley, Steven M. 1975. “A Theory of Evolution Above the Species Level.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 72: 560–646.Google Scholar
  77. Stanley, Steven M. 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  78. Suárez-Díaz, Edna and Anaya-Munoz, Victor H. 2008. “History, Objectivity, and the Construction of Molecular Phylogenies.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 39: 451–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Turney, Jon. 1987. “Thatcher Plans to Do More With Less.” The Scientist 1(16): 4.Google Scholar
  80. Walsh, John. 1970. “Budget Cuts Prompt Closer Look at the System.” Science 168: 802–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Whittington, Harry B. 1975. “The Enigmatic Animal Opabinia regalis, Middle Cambrian, Burgess Shale, British Columbia.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 271: 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Whittington, Harry B. 1978. “The Lobopod Animal Aysheaia pedunculata Walcott, Middle Cambrian, Burgess Shale, British Columbia.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 284: 165–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Whittington, Harry B. 1979. “Early Arthropods, Their Appendages and Relationships.” M.R. House (ed.), The Origin of Major Invertebrate Groups. London: Academic Press Inc., pp. 253–268.Google Scholar
  84. Whittington, Harry B. 1980. “The Significance of the Fauna of the Burgess Shale, Middle Cambrian, British Columbia.” Proceedings of the Geologists Association 91: 127–148.Google Scholar
  85. Whittington, Harry B. 1985. The Burgess Shale. London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Williams, David M. and Forey, Peter L. 2004. Milestones in Systematics. Boca Raton: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wills, Matthew A., Briggs, Derek E.G. and Fortey, Richard. 1994. “Disparity as an Evolutionary Index: A Comparison of Cambrian and Recent Arthropods.” Paleobiology 20: 93–130.Google Scholar
  88. Wilson, Edward O. 1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA/London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Xiao, Shuhai, Yuan, Xunlai and Knoll, Andrew H. 2000. “Eumetazoan Fossils in Terminal Proterozoic Phosphorites?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97: 13684–13689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Ziman, John. 2000. Real Science: What it is, and What it Means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for the Philosophy of Nature and Science StudiesUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations