Specialisation by Value Divergence: The Role of Epistemic Values in the Branching of Scientific Disciplines

References

• Ackerly, D. D. 2003. “Community Assembly, Niche Conservatism, and Adaptive Evolution in Changing Environments.” International Journal of Plant Sciences 164:S165–S184. https://doi.org/10.1086/368401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bird, A. 2000. Thomas Kuhn. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bird, A. 2002. “Kuhn's Wrong Turning.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 33:443–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-3681(02)00028-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camacho, M. P. 2019. “The Central Dogma is Empirically Inadequate…No Matter How We Slice it.” Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 11 (6). https://doi.org/10.3998/ptpbio.16039257.0011.006.
   Google Scholar
• Carrier, M. 2013. “Values and Objectivity in Science: Value-Ladenness, Pluralism and the Epistemic Attitude.” Science & Education 22:2547–2568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9481-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, H. 2012. Is Water H${}_2$O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Chang, H. 2013. “Incommensurability: Revisiting the Chemical Revolution.” Kuhn's the Structure of Scientific Revolutions Revisited, edited by T. Arabatzis and V. Kindi, 153–178. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Darwin, C. 1859. The Origin of Species. London: John Murray.
   Google Scholar
• De Benedetto, M., M. Luchetti. 2023. “Theory Choice as Niche Construction: The Feedback Loop Between Scientific Theories and Epistemic Values.” Manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• De Benedetto, M., M. Luchetti. forthcoming. “Worlds, Algorithms, and Niches: The Feedback-Loop Idea in Kuhn's Philosophy.” Forthcoming. In Rethinking Thomas Kuhn's Legacy, Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, edited by Y. Shan, Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• de Chadarevian, S. 2002. Designs for Life: Molecular Biology After World War II. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, H. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Feder, J. L., S. P. Egan, and P. Nosil. 2012. “The Genomics of Speciation-with-Gene-Flow.” Trends in Genetics 28:342–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2012.03.009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feest, U. 2014. “Phenomenal Experiences, First-Person Methods, and the Artificiality of Experimental Data.” Philosophy of Science 81:927–939. https://doi.org/10.1086/677689.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, E. P., and C. Lipson. 1988. Thinking about Science: Max Delbrueck and the Origins of Molecular Biology. New York: W.W. Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, M. 2001. Dynamics of Reason: The 1999 Kant Lectures at Standford University. Standford (CA): CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Griffiths, P., and K. Stotz. 2013. Genetics and Philosophy: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haufe, C. 2022. How Knowledge Grows: The Evolutionary Development of Scientific Practice. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hoyningen-Huene, P. 1993. Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn's Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hoyningen-Huene, P., and H. Sankey. 2001. Incommensurability and Related Matters. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Judson, H. F. 1996. The Eight Day of Creation: The Makers of the Revolution in Biology, Expanded Edition. Cold Spring Harbor (NY): Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
   Google Scholar
• Keyes, M. E. 1999. “The Prion Challenge to the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology, 1965–1991: Part II: The Problem with Prions.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 30:181–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8486(98)00029-6.
   Google Scholar
• Kitcher, P. 1978. “Theories, Theorists, and Theoretical Change.” The Philosophical Review 87:519–547. https://doi.org/10.2307/2184458.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koestler, A., and J. R. Smythies. 1969. Beyond Reductionism: New Perspectives in the Life Sciences. New York: The MacMillan Co.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolution. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, 2nd ed. Vol. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolution. 2nd ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. 1974. “Second Thoughts on Paradigms.” In The Structure of Scientific Theories, edited by F. Suppe, 459–482. Chicago: University Chicagoof Illinois Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. 1977. “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice.” In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, edited by Thomas Kuhn, 320–339. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. 1983a. “Commensurability, Comparability, Communicability.” In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association, 669–688.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. 1983b. “Rationality and Theory Choice.” Journal of Philosophy 80:563–570. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. 1989. “Possible Worlds in History of Science.” In Possible Worlds in Humanities, Arts, and Sciences, edited by A. Sture, 9–32. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. 1990. “The Road Since Structure.” In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 2, 3–13.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. 1993. “Afterwords.” In The Road Since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970-1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, 224–252. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuukkanen, J. 2012. “The Concept of Evolution in Kuhn's Philosophy.” In Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Revisited, edited by V. Kindi and T. Arabatzis, 134–153. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kuukkanen, J. 2021. “Truth, Incoherence, and the Evolution of Science.” In Interpreting Kuhn: Critical Essays, edited by K. B. Wray, 202–221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lacey, H. 1999. Is Science Value Free?: Values and Scientific Understanding. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lakatos, I. 1978. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, edited by J. Worrall and G. Currie, 8–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakatos, I., and A. Musgrave eds. 1970. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laland, K., T. Uller, M. Feldman, K. Sterelny, G. B. Müller, A. Moczek, E. Jablonka, et al. 2014. “Does Evolutionary Theory Need a Rethink?” Nature News 514:161–164. https://doi.org/10.1038/514161a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laland, K. N., T. Uller, M. W. Feldman, K. Sterelny, G. B. Müller, A. Moczek, E. Jablonka, and J. Odling-Smee. 2015. “The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: Its Structure, Assumptions and Predictions.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 282:20151019. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laudan, L. 1978. Progress and Its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laudan, L. 1981. “A Confutation of Convergent Realism.” Philosophy of Science 48:19–49. https://doi.org/10.1086/288975.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laudan, L. 1984. Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laudan, L. 2004. “The Epistemic, the Cognitive, and the Social.” In Science, Values, and Objectivity. edited by Peter Machamer & Gereon Wolters, 14–23. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lehtonen, J., and H. Kokko. 2012. “Positive Feedback and Alternative Stable States in Inbreeding, Cooperation, Sex Roles and Other Evolutionary Processes.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 367:211–221. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0177.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewontin, R. C. 1978. “Adaptation.” Scientific American 239:212–230. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0978-212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Longino, H. E. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marcum, J. 2015. “The Evolving Notion and Role of Kuhn's Incommensurability Thesis.” In Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions – 50 Years on, Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science. Vol. 311, edited by W. J. Devlin and A. Bokulich, 115–134. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• McMullin, E. 1983. “Values in Science.” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:3–28.
   Google Scholar
• Morange, M. 1998. A History of Molecular Biology. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oberheim, E., and P. Hoyningen-Huene. 2018. “The Incommensurability of Scientific Theories.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall 2018 ed., edited by Edward N. Zalta, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/incommensurability/.
   Google Scholar
• Odling-Smee, F. J., K. N. Laland, and M. W. Feldman. 2003. Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Okasha, S. 2011. “Theory Choice and Social Choice: Kuhn Versus Arrow.” Mind 120:83–115. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzr010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olby, R. 1990. “The Molecular Revolution in Biology.” In Companion to the History of Modern Science, edited by R. C. Olby et al., 503–520. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Olby, R. 1994. The Path to the Double Helix: The Discovery of DNA. Revised ed. New York: Dover.
   Google Scholar
• Palumbi, S. R. 1994. “Genetic Divergence, Reproductive Isolation, and Marine Speciation.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 25:547–572. https://doi.org/10.1146/ecolsys.1994.25.issue-1.
   Google Scholar
• Politi, V. 2018. “Scientific Revolutions, Specialization and the Discovery of the Structure of DNA: Toward a New Picture of the Development of the Sciences.” Synthese 195:2267–2293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1339-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Politi, V. 2019. “Specialisation and the Incommensurability among Scientific Specialties.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 50:129–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-018-9432-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Psillos, S. 1999. Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Renzi, B. G. 2009. “Kuhn's Evolutionary Epistemology and Its Being Undermined by Inadequate Biological Concepts.” Philosophy of Science 76:143–159. https://doi.org/10.1086/647928.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reydon, T. A. C., and P. Hoyningen-Huene. 2010. “Discussion: Kuhn's Evolutionary Analogy in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and “The Road Since Structure.” Philosophy of Science 77:468–476. https://doi.org/10.1086/652966.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rheinberger, H. J. 1997. Towards a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. Standford (CA): Standford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rice, W. R. 1987. “Speciation Via Habitat Specialization: The Evolution of Reproductive Isolation as a Correlated Character.” Evolutionary Ecology 1:301–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02071555.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sankey, H. 1993. “Kuhn's Changing Concept of Incommensurability.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44:759–774. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/44.4.759.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sankey, H. 1994. The Incommensurability Thesis. Abingdon: Taylor and Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Sankey, H. 1995. “The Problem of Rational Theory-Choice.” Epistemologia 18:299–312.
   Google Scholar
• Sankey, H. 1997. “Taxonomic Incommensurability.” In Rationality, Relativism, and Incommensurability, edited by H. Sankey, 66–80. London: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Shan, Y. 2020a. “Kuhn's ‘Wrong Turning’ and Legacy Today.” Synthese 197:381–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-1740-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shan, Y. 2020b. Doing Integrated History and Philosophy of Science: A Case Study of the Origin of Genetics. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and the History of Science, Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Shapere, D. 1966. “Meaning and Scientific Change.” In Mind and Cosmos: Essays in Contemporary Science and Philosophy, edited by R. Colodny, 41–85. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Solomon, M. 2001. Social Empiricism. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stegmüller, W. 1976. The Structure and Dynamics of Theories. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Stotz, K. 2006. “Molecular Epigenesis: Distributed Specificity as a Break in the Central Dogma.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 28:533–548. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23334185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Holde, K. E., and J. Zlatanova. 2018. The Evolution of Molecular Biology: The Search for the Secrets of Life. London: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Witkowski, J. ed. 2005. The Inside Story: DNA to RNA to Protein. New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wray, K. B. 2011. Kuhn's Evolutionary Social Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar