Science As a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science

by David L. Hull

Hull applies an evolutionary model of selection processes to scientists and their work, showing that competition and cooperation among scientists result in the selective retention of new scientific ideas. As a model he offers a detailed history of theoretical struggles during the last two decades in systematic zoology, a field with which he's intimately acquainted. Hull shows that bias, personal commitments, and self-interest are the norm in science. He argues that scientific knowledge grows not in spite of these seeming flaws but because of them. Annotation copyright Book News, Inc. Portland, Or.

Genres: Science, Philosophy, Nonfiction, History Of Science, Evolution

586 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1988

About the author

David Lee Hull was an American philosopher who was most notable for founding the field philosophy of biology. Additionally, Hull is recognized within evolutionary culture studies as contributing heavily in early discussions of the conceptualization of memetics. In addition to his academic prominence, he was well known as a gay man who fought for the rights of other gay and lesbian philosophers. Hull was partnered with Richard "Dick" Wellman, a Chicago school teacher, until Wellman's passing during the drafting of Science as Process.

Reviews

[Billy Rubin · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a practicing phylogenetic systematist from one of the centers that was a focus of this book, I really enjoyed reading an objective account of the "cladistics wars" (and what my professors were up to during those times!). The social aspect of science is underappreciated by working scientists, and I will be thinking about those aspects of this book for a long time. Being the subject of study is also curious, and I interact with the strong philosophy of science department at my current institution. I am decidedly not a philosopher, and found some of the latter chapters a bit of a slog, despite the relatively sparse use of philosophical terms of art (what were used were well introduced). Hull mercifully avoided jargon such as "ostension", opting for "baptism" for the explicit act of tying a proper name to a thing. I am uncertain that Hull made a strong enough case for a nearly literal selection model for scientific progress, although I have little problem with the broader brush strokes applied.

Wonderful book, I am already making my students read it for the history of how we got where we are now in at least this one small area of biology.

[Francesc Roig · Rating 5 out of 5]

Monumental. Interessantíssima anàlisi de com "es fa" la ciència, utilitzant com a eatudi de cas la biologia evolutiva. Desfà uns quants tòpics sobre què ès la ciència, com es construeix el coneixement científic i sobre com actuen els científics

[Mark Bowles · Rating 4 out of 5]

A. Synopsis: Hull argues that there must be another way to analyze science other than that offered by the logical empiricists (positivists) and the social constructivists (the relativists who argue no truth in science). Hull asks the question concerning the importance to science of reason, argument, and evidence on one hand, and power prestige, and influence on the other? To explore this question he studied the pheneticists (evolutionary biologists who study fruit flies, fossil fish, and slime molds). What causes some to believe in gradual biological evolution, while other believe in more saltatory, discrete jumps?
B. Argument
1. Thesis: The competition among scientists shapes scientific ideas and the ‘process’ of science is contentious.
2. Terms: Competition, promotion, alliances, lineage’s
3. A Darwinian analogy. To argue against the logical empiricists Hull uses a Darwinian model. Scientists compete with one another for jobs, research money, graduate students, and recognition, using ‘ideas’ as the equivalent of adaptive traits. Scientists ‘maximize their fitness’ by promoting their ideas in academic arenas where struggle takes place (journals, conferences, universities). Scientists try to improve the fertility of their ideas by leaving more ‘copies’ of their work than their competitors. Alliances are formed with other scientists, not simply to advance scientific knowledge, but to trounce the competition. Altruism exists, but only when it is self-serving. Like genes ideas are transformed over generations, forming modified lineage’s. Some ideas become extinct, others form hybrids.
4. There are real ideas, an objective world, that exists. But what is often most important in the short run are the social and political factors which shape how the objective world is perceived.
C. Historical examples that support his argument
1. The main case study is a controversy which arose in the late 1950s and focused on the most effective methods of constructing taxonomic groupings. Should they be constructed based on the similarity of observable traits (pheneticists), on the analysis of nearest branch-point relatives (cladists), or a true evolutionary model (evolutionary taxonomists). Hull spends a great deal of time showing how these groups competed for funds, journals, and support. This is an example of “science red in tooth and claw.”
D. My problem with this argument is that the ‘process’ of science is considered timeless. Yet, what he describes is science as it exists in a capitalist, Western society, built upon competition. Would the ‘process’ of science be the same in a Communist country?

[Alexander Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first half is largely argument from anecdotal evidence with practical reasoning. If someone had no prior idea of what to expect in a book like this, it would be very difficult to explain without some initial story telling, so that's what was done.

However, if one did know the gist of how history of science works methodologically, and was thoroughly read in early to mid-20th century epistemology, the first half of the book can be skipped unless one is particularly interested in Dr. Hull's carefully chosen history. If one is interested in a perspective of science that follows well from Thomas Kuhn, the second half will be the bread and butter for this person.

Using loose references to his former half of the book, Hull argues the evolutionary process of science in a social manner that extends very nicely from Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. However, I had some tedious irritations of generalization and hasty conclusions from lack of empirics, in total the book has a few gems worth considering. Also he brings into question a few interesting possible perspectives of how to progress in science of science.

[Åse · Rating 5 out of 5]

How does science Really get made? Well, not quite the way you get it in an introductory chapter to sciences. It is a far more organic process, which still, in the end, many researchers later, seems to hone in on something like the truth. In fact, Hull proposes a rather Darwinian view on how ideas flourishes, cross-fertilizes, and sometimes die out due to lack of fit. Half the book is a fascinating look at those scientists that research how best to classify species - the question that put Linnaeus on the scientific map. The other half discusses Hulls idea how science is a process with frequent dead ends, and missteps, ruled as much by people partisan to their scientific 'parents' or inspirators as it is to uncover the truth.

[Kim Foster · Rating 5 out of 5]

Most amazing introduction to science as a process in an evolutionary sense, changed how I think and conceptualized systematics and philosophy. I must read, for any one remotely interested in biology and phylogenetic and systematics. Plus he was a Gay supporter of gay and lesbian philosophers. Amazing amazing book