Biology and Philosophy

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 61–91 | Cite as

The Professionalization of Science Studies: Cutting Some Slack

  • David L. Hull
Article

Abstract

During the past hundred years or so, those scholars studying science have isolated themselves as much as possible from scientists as well as from workers in other disciplines who study science. The result of this effort is history of science, philosophy of science and sociology of science as separate disciplines. I argue in this paper that now is the time for these disciplinary boundaries to be lowered or at least made more permeable so that a unified discipline of Science Studies might emerge. I discuss representative problems that stand in the way of such an integration. These problems may seem so formidable in the abstract that no one in their right mind would waste their time trying to bring about a unified field of Science Studies. However, those of us who limit ourselves to the study of the biological sciences have already formed a society in which workers from all disciplines can share their expertise -- the International Society for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science.

epistemological relativism history of science interdisciplinary philosophy of science positivism Science Studies social studies of scientific knowledge sociology of science Whiggism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amundson, R. and Lauder, G.V.: 1994, ‘Function without Progress: The Uses of Causal Role Function in Evolutionary Biology’, Biology and Philosophy 9, 443–469.Google Scholar
  2. Antonovics, J., Ellstrand, N.C. and Brandon, R.N.: 1988, ‘Genetic Variation and Environmental Variation: Expectations and Experiments’, in Gottlieb, L.D. and Jain, S.K. (eds.), Plant Evolutionary Biology, Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 275–303.Google Scholar
  3. Ashmore, M.: 1989, The Reflexive Thesis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  4. Ashmore, M.: 1996, ‘Ending Up on the Wrong Side: Must the Two Forms of Radicalism Always Be at War?’, Social Studies of Science 26, 305–322.Google Scholar
  5. Beatty, J.: 1982, ‘Classes and Cladists’, Systematic Zoology 31, 25–34.Google Scholar
  6. Biagioli, M.: 1996, ‘From Relativism to Contingentism’, in Galison, P. and Stump, D.J. (eds.), The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power, Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 189–206.Google Scholar
  7. Bloor, D.: 1976, Knowledge and Social Imagery, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  8. Bowler, P.: 1988, ‘The Whig Interpretation of Geology’, Biology and Philosophy 3, 99–103.Google Scholar
  9. Brandon, R.N., Antonovics, J., Burian, R., Carson, S., Cooper, G., Davies, P.S., Horvath, C., Mishler, B.D., Richardson, R.C., Smith, K. and Thrall, P.: 1994, ‘Discussion: Sober on Brandon on Screening-Off and the Levels of Selection’, Philosophy of Science 61, 475–486.Google Scholar
  10. Brooke, J.H.: 1987, ‘Review of Rudwick’ (1985), History 72, 118–119.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, A.: 1997, ‘The Man Who Finished Off Authority’, Social Studies of Science 27, 486–488.Google Scholar
  12. Brush, S.G.: 1995, ‘Scientists as Historians’, Osiris 10, 215–231.Google Scholar
  13. Burian, R.: 1977, ‘More than a Marriage of Convenience: On the Inextricability of History and Philosophy of Science’, Philosophy of Science 44, 1–42.Google Scholar
  14. Bynum, W.F.: 1985, ‘On the Written Authority of Ernst Mayr’, Nature 317, 585.Google Scholar
  15. Collins, H.M. and Pinch, T.: 1997, ‘Science as a Cultural construct’, Nature 387, 544.Google Scholar
  16. Cosans, C.: 1998, ‘Aristotle's Anatomical Philosophy of Nature’, Biology and Philosophy 13, 311–339.Google Scholar
  17. Desmond, A.: 1989, The Politics of Evolution, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  18. Desmond, A. and Moore, J.: 1991, Darwin, Warner, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Donovan, A., Laudan, L. and Laudan, R. (eds.): 1988, Scrutinizing Science: Empirical Studies of Scientific Change, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  20. Farris, J.S. and Platnick, N.: 1989, ‘Lord of the Flies: The Systematist as Study Animal’, Cladistics 5, 295–310.Google Scholar
  21. Felsenstein, J. and Sober, E.: 1986, ‘Likelihood and Parsimony - An Exchange’, Systematic Zoology 35, 617–626.Google Scholar
  22. Fish, S.: 1996, ‘Professor Sokal's Bad Joke’, The New York Times, Tuesday, May 21.Google Scholar
  23. Forman, P.: 1991, ‘Independence, Not Transcendence, for the Historian of Science’, Isis 82, 71–86.Google Scholar
  24. Fox Keller, E.: 1983, A Feeling for the Organism, Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Fuller, S.: 1994, ‘Being Civil with Scientists: A Reply to Wolpert and Weinberg’, Social Studies of Science 24, 751–757.Google Scholar
  26. Galton, F.: 1874, English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  27. Giere, R.: 1973, ‘History and Philosophy of Science: Intimate Relationship or Marriage of Convenience?’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24, 282–297.Google Scholar
  28. Godfrey-Smith, P. and Lewontin, R.C.: 1993, ‘The Dimensions of Selection’, Philosophy of Science 60, 373–394.Google Scholar
  29. Graham, L.: 1981, ‘Why Can't History Dance Contemporary Ballet? or Whig History and the Evils of Contemporary Dance’, Science, Technology and Human Values 34, 3–6.Google Scholar
  30. Griesemer, J.R. and Wade, M.J.: 1988, ‘Laboratory Models, Causal Explanation, and Group Selection’, Biology and Philosophy 20, 157–184.Google Scholar
  31. Griffiths, P.E. and Gray, R.D.: 1994, ‘Developmental Systems and Evolutionary Explanations’, The Journal of Philosophy 91, 277–304.Google Scholar
  32. Gross, P. and Levitt, N.: 1994, Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  33. Hakfoort, C.: 1995, ‘The Historiography of Scientism: A Critical Review’, History of Science 33, 375–395.Google Scholar
  34. Hall, A.R.: 1983, ‘On Whiggism’, History of Science 21, 45–59.Google Scholar
  35. Hardcastle, G.L.: 1991, ‘Presentism and the Indeterminacy of Translation’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 22, 321–345.Google Scholar
  36. Harrison, E.: 1987, ‘Whigs, Prigs, and Historians of Science’, Nature 329, 213–224.Google Scholar
  37. Hull, D.L.: 1979, ‘In Defense of Presentism’, History and Theory 18, 1–15.Google Scholar
  38. Hull, D.L.: 1983, ‘Karl Popper and Plato's Metaphor’, in Platnick, N. and Funk, V. (eds.), Advances in Cladistics, Vol. 2. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 177–189.Google Scholar
  39. Hull, D.L.: 1988, Science as a Process, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  40. Hull, D.L.: 1998, ‘The Role of Biology in Philosophy of Biology’, in Proceedings of the 1986 Vigo Conference on Philosophy of Biology Today, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  41. Hull, D.L.: 1999, ‘The Use and Abuse of Sir Karl Popper’, Biology and Philosophy, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  42. Hull, D.L., Langman, R. and Glenn, S.: 1999, ‘A General Analysis of Selection’, manuscript.Google Scholar
  43. Hull, D.L., Tessner, P. and Diamond, A.: 1978, ‘Planck's Principle’, Science 202, 717–723.Google Scholar
  44. Kevles, D.J.: 1998, The Baltimore Case: A Trial of Politics, Science, and Character, W.W. Norton & Company, New York.Google Scholar
  45. Kitcher, P.A.: 1998, ‘Plea for Science Studies’, in Koertge, N. (ed.), A House Built on Sand, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 32–56.Google Scholar
  46. Latour, B.: 1988, ‘Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer’, Social Problems 35, 298–310.Google Scholar
  47. Latour, B.: 1993, We Were Never Modern, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  48. Latour, B.: 1998, ‘From the World of Science to the World of Research’, Science 280, 208–209.Google Scholar
  49. Latour, B. and Woolgar, S.: 1979, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts, Sage, London.Google Scholar
  50. Laudan, R.: 1987, From Mineralogy to Geology: The Foundations of a Science, 1650-1830, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  51. Lightman, B.: 1996, ‘Introduction’, in Galison, P. and Stump, D.J. (eds.), The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power, Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
  52. Lloyd, E.A. and Gould, S.J.: 1993, ‘Species Selection on Variability’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA 90, 595–599.Google Scholar
  53. Lynch, M.: 1993, Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  54. Maynard Smith, J.: 1983, ‘Adaptation and Satisficing’, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6, 370–371.Google Scholar
  55. Maynard Smith, J.: 1987, ‘Reply to Sober’, in Dupré, J. (ed.), The Latest on the Best: Essays on Evolution and Optimality, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 147–149.Google Scholar
  56. Maynard Smith, J., Burian, J.R., Kaufmann, S., Alberch, P., Campbell, J., Goodman, B., Lande, R., Raup, D. and Wolpert, L.: 1985, The Quarterly Review of Biology 60, 265–287.Google Scholar
  57. Mayr, E.: 1990, ‘When Is Historiography Whiggish?’, Journal of the History of Ideas 51, 301–309.Google Scholar
  58. McCluskey, S.C.: 1987, ‘Historians, Whigs, and Progress’, Nature 330, 598.Google Scholar
  59. McEvoy, J.G.: 1997, ‘Positivism, Whiggism, and the Chemical Revolution: A Study in the Historiography of Chemistry’, History of Science 35, 1–33.Google Scholar
  60. Merton, R.K.: 1973, The Sociology of Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  61. Miller, D.P.: 1987, ‘Review of Rudwick (1985)’, Journal of Social History 20, 793–798.Google Scholar
  62. Mishler, B.D. and Brandon, R.N.: 1987, ‘Individualism, Pluralism, and the Phylogenetic Species Concept’, Biology and Philosophy 2, 397–414.Google Scholar
  63. Moore, J.: 1996, ‘Metabiographical Reflections on Charles Darwin’, in Shortland, M. and Yeo, R. (eds.), Telling Lives in Science: Essays on Scientific Biography, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 267–281.Google Scholar
  64. Morrell, J.B.: 1987, ‘Review of Rudwick (1985)’, The British Journal for the History of Science 20, 88–89.Google Scholar
  65. Nickles, T.: 1992, ‘Good Science as Bad History: From Order of Knowing to Order of Being’, in McMullin, E. (ed.), The Social Dimension of Science, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  66. Pels, D.: 1996, ‘The Politics of Symmetry’, Social Studies of Science 26, 277–304.Google Scholar
  67. Pickstone, J.V.: 1995, ‘Past and Present Knowledge in the Practice of the History of Science’, History of Science 33, 204–224.Google Scholar
  68. Pinch, T.: 1986, ‘Review of Rudwick (1985)’, Social Studies of Science 16, 704–713.Google Scholar
  69. Platnick, N.: 1982, ‘Defining Characters and Evolutionary Groups’, Systematic Zoology 31, 282–284.Google Scholar
  70. Podolsky, S.H. and Tauber, A.: 1998, The Generation of Diversity: Clonal Selection Theory and the Rise of Molecular Immunology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  71. Popper, K.: 1974, Schilpp, P.A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Karl Popper, 2 vols. Open Court Publishers, LaSalle, IL.Google Scholar
  72. Rudwick, M.J.S.: 1985, The Great Devonian Controversy: The Shaping of Scientific Knowledge among Gentlemanly Specialists, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  73. Rudwick, M.J.S. (trans.): 1996, Georges Cuvier, Fossil Bones, and Geological Catastrophes, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  74. Ruse, M.: 1975, ‘Woodger on Genetics’, Acta Biotheoretical 24, 1–13.Google Scholar
  75. Ruse, M.: 1977, ‘Karl Popper's Philosophy of Biology’, Philosophy of Science 44, 638–661.Google Scholar
  76. Ruse, M.: 1987, ‘Review of Rudwick (1985)’, Biology and Philosophy 2, 377–381.Google Scholar
  77. Ruse, M. and Wilson, E.O.: 1986, ‘Moral Philosophy as Applied to Science: A Darwinian Approach to the Foundations of Ethics’, Philosophy 61, 173–192.Google Scholar
  78. Russell, C.: 1984, ‘Whigs and Professionals’, Nature 308, 777–778.Google Scholar
  79. Shapin, S.: 1982, ‘History of Science and Its Sociological Reconstruction’, History of Science 20, 157–211.Google Scholar
  80. Shapin, S.: 1988, ‘Understanding the Merton Thesis’, Isis 79, 594–605.Google Scholar
  81. Shapin, S.: 1992, ‘Discipline and Bounding: The History and Sociology of Science as Seen Through the Externalism-Internalism Debate’, History of Science 30, 333–369.Google Scholar
  82. Shortland, M. and Yeo, R. (eds.): 1996, Telling Lives in Science: Essays on Scientific Biography, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  83. Smith, C.U.M.: 1997, ‘Worlds in Collision: Owen and Huxley on the Brain’, Science in Context 10, 343–365.Google Scholar
  84. Sober, E.: 1987, ‘Comments on Maynard Smith's “How to Model Evolution”’, in Dupré, J. (ed.), The Latest on the Best: Essays on Evolution and Optimality, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 133–145.Google Scholar
  85. Sober, E. and Lewontin, R.C.: 1982, ‘Artifact, Cause, and Genic Selection’, Philosophy of Science 49, 147–176.Google Scholar
  86. Sober, E. and Wilson, D.S.: 1994, ‘A Critical Review of Philosophical Work on the Units of Selection Problem’, Philosophy of Science 61, 534–555.Google Scholar
  87. Sokal, A.D.: 1996, ‘Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity’, Social Text 46, 217–251.Google Scholar
  88. Somerville, M.: 1834, On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences, John Murray, London.Google Scholar
  89. Stocking, G.W.: 1965, ‘On the Limits of “Presentism” and “Historicism” in the Historiography of the Behavioral Sciences’, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 1, 211–218.Google Scholar
  90. Storer, N.W.: 1973, ‘Introduction to R.K. Merton’, in The Sociology of Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. xi–xxxi.Google Scholar
  91. Thrackray, J.C.: 1986, ‘Review of Rudwick (1985)’, Archives of Natural History 13, 182–183.Google Scholar
  92. Trout, J.D.: 1994, ‘A Realistic Look Backward’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 25, 37–64.Google Scholar
  93. Weinberg, S.: 1992, Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist's Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature, Vintage Books, New York.Google Scholar
  94. Wilde, C.B.: 1981, ‘Whig History’, in Bynum, W.F., Browne, E.J. and Porter, R. (eds.), Dictionary of the History of Science, Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 445–446.Google Scholar
  95. Williams, L. Pearce: 1975, ‘Should Philosophers of Science be Allowed to Write History?’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 26, 241–253.Google Scholar
  96. Wilson, A. and Ashplant, T.G.: 1988, ‘Whig History and Present-Centered History’, Historical Journal 31, 1–16.Google Scholar
  97. Wilson, D.S. and Sober, E.: 1989, ‘Reviving the Superogranism’, Journal of Theoretical Biology 136, 337–356.Google Scholar
  98. Winsor, M.P.: ‘The Practitioner of Science: Everyman Her Own Historian’, http://www.uwo.ca/philosophy/schpsinf.html.Google Scholar
  99. Woodger, J.H.: 1937, The Axiomatic Method in Biology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  100. Woodger, J.H.: 1952, Biology and Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  101. Wolpert, L.: 1992, The Unnatural Nature of Science: Why Science Does Not Make (Common) Sense, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  102. Wolpert, L.: 1994, ‘Response to Fuller’, Social Studies of Science 24, 745–747.Google Scholar
  103. Zerilli, L.: 1994, Signifying Women: Culture and Chaos in Rousseau, Burke, and Mill, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • David L. Hull
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations