Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T17:56:01.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conceptualizing the (Dis)unity of Science∗

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Todd A. Grantham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper argues that conceptualizing unity as “interconnection” (rather than reduction) provides a more fruitful and versatile framework for the philosophical study of scientific unification. Building on the work of Darden and Maull, Kitcher, and Kincaid, I treat unity as a relationship between fields: two fields become more integrated as the number and/or significance of interfield connections grow. Even when reduction fails, two theories or fields can be unified (integrated) in significant ways. I highlight two largely independent dimensions of unification. Fields are theoretically unified to the extent that we understand how the ontologies, concepts, and generalizations of these fields are connected. (Reductionism is one form of theoretical unity, but not the only form). Fields are practically unified through heuristic connections (e.g., using the heuristics of one field to generate hypotheses in another field) and by the development of methods for integrating the qualitatively distinct bodies of data generated by the two fields. I discuss the relationship between paleontological and neontological systematics to illustrate the utility of conceptualizing unity as interconnection.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 71 , Issue 2 , April 2004 , pp. 133 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

I began this project while working at the University of Chicago, with the support of the National Science Foundation (SES-9818379). This paper was subsequently revised while on sabbatical from the College of Charleston and was presented at Northwestern University, DePauw University, and the International Society for the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology 2001 biennial meeting. The questions and comments from these audiences led to major improvements. Comments from Lindley Darden and two anonymous referees led to further improvements. Thanks to all.

References

Bechtel, William (1986), “The Nature of Scientific Integration”, in Bechtel, William (ed.), Integrating Scientific Disciplines. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 3–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, Derek E.G., and Crowther, Peter R. (eds.) (2001), Paleobiology II. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burian, Richard (1993), “Unification and Coherence as Methodological Objectives in the Biological Sciences”, Unification and Coherence as Methodological Objectives in the Biological Sciences 8:301–318.Google Scholar
Carroll, Robert L. (1997), Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cat, Jordi, Cartwright, Nancy, and Chang, Hasok (1996), “Otto Neurath: Politics and the Unity of Science”, in Galison, Peter and Stump, David J. (eds.), The Disunity of Science. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 347–369.Google Scholar
Causey, Robert (1977), The Unity of Science. Dordrecht: Reidl.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culp, Sylvia, and Kitcher, Philip (1989), “Theory Structure and Theory Change in Contemporary Molecular Biology”, Theory Structure and Theory Change in Contemporary Molecular Biology 40:459–483.Google Scholar
Darden, Lindley (1991), Theory Change in Science: Strategies from Mendelian Genetics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Darden, Lindley, and Maull, Nancy (1977), “Interfield Theories”, Interfield Theories 44:43–64.Google Scholar
Donoghue, Michael J., Doyle, James A., Gauthier, Jaques, Kluge, Arnold G., and Rowe, Timothy (1989), “Importance of Fossils in Phylogeny Reconstruction”, Importance of Fossils in Phylogeny Reconstruction 20:431–460.Google Scholar
Dupré, John (1983), “The Disunity of Science”, The Disunity of Science 42:321–346.Google Scholar
Dupré, John (1993), The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Erwin, David, Valentine, James, and Jablonski, David (1997), “The Origin of Animal Body Plans”, The Origin of Animal Body Plans 85:126–137.Google Scholar
Fisher, Daniel C. (1994), “Stratocladistics: Morphological and Temporal Patterns and Their Relation to Phylogenetic Process”, in Grande, Lance and Rieppel, Olivier (eds.), Interpreting the Hierarchy of Nature. San Diego: Academic Press, 133–171.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry (1974), “Special Sciences: The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis”, Special Sciences: The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis 28:97–115.Google Scholar
Foote, Mike, Hunter, John P., Janis, Christine M., and Spekoski, J. John Jr. (1999), “Evolutionary and Preservational Constraints on Origins of Biologic Groups: Divergence Times of Eutherian Mammals”, Evolutionary and Preservational Constraints on Origins of Biologic Groups: Divergence Times of Eutherian Mammals 283:1310–1314.Google ScholarPubMed
Fox, David L., Fisher, Daniel C., and Leighton, Lindsey R. (1999), “Reconstructing Phylogeny With and Without Temporal Data”, Reconstructing Phylogeny With and Without Temporal Data 284:1816–1819.Google ScholarPubMed
Galison, Peter (1997), Image and Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grantham, Todd (2004), “The Role of Fossils in Phylogeny Reconstruction, or Why Is It Difficult to Integrate Paleontological and Neontological Evolutionary Biology?” Biology and Philosophy, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian (1996), “The Disunities of the Sciences”, in Galison, Peter and Stump, David J. (eds.), The Disunity of Science. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 37–74.Google Scholar
Hardcastle, Valerie (1992), “Reduction, Explanatory Extension, and the Mind/Brain Sciences”, Reduction, Explanatory Extension, and the Mind/Brain Sciences 59:408–428.Google Scholar
Ji, Qiang, Luo, Zhe-Xi, Yuan, Chong-Xi, Wible, John R., Zhang, Jian-Ping, and Georgi, Justin A (2002), “The Earliest Known Eutherian Mammal”, The Earliest Known Eutherian Mammal 416:816–822.Google ScholarPubMed
Kemp, T.S. (2000), Fossils and Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kincaid, Harold (1990), “Molecular Biology and the Unity of Science”, Molecular Biology and the Unity of Science 53:492–513.Google Scholar
Kincaid, Harold (1997), Individualism and the Unity of Science. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1984), “1953 and All That: A Tale of Two Sciences”, 1953 and All That: A Tale of Two Sciences 93:335–373.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1999), “Unification as a Regulative Ideal”, Unification as a Regulative Ideal 7:337–348.Google Scholar
Kumar, Sudhir, and Hedges, S. Blair (1998), “A Molecular Timescale for Vertebrate Evolution”, A Molecular Timescale for Vertebrate Evolution 392:917–920.Google ScholarPubMed
Maull, Nancy (1977), “Unifying Science without Reduction”, Unifying Science without Reduction 8:143–162.Google Scholar
Morrison, Margaret (2000), Unifying Scientific Theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppenheim, Paul, and Putnam, Hilary (1958), “Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis”, in Herbert Feigl, Michael Scriven, and Grover Maxwell (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 2. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 3–36.Google Scholar
Reaka-Kudla, Marjorie L., and Colwell, Rita R. (1991), “Introduction”, in Dudley, E. C. (ed.), The Unity of Evolutionary Biology: Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology. Portland, OR: Discorides Press, 15–22.Google Scholar
Sarkar, Sahotra (1998), Genetics and Reductionism. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scerri, Eric R. (2000), “The Failure of Reduction and How to Resist the Disunity of the Sciences in the Context of Chemical Education”, The Failure of Reduction and How to Resist the Disunity of the Sciences in the Context of Chemical Education 9:405–425.Google Scholar
Schaffner, Kenneth (1974), “The Peripherality of Reductionism in the Development of Molecular Biology”, The Peripherality of Reductionism in the Development of Molecular Biology 7:111–139.Google ScholarPubMed
Schaffner, Kenneth (1993), Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Andrew B. (1994), Systematics and The Fossil Record. London: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Andrew B. (1998), “What Does Palaeontology Contribute to Systematics in a Molecular World?”, What Does Palaeontology Contribute to Systematics in a Molecular World? 9:437–447.Google Scholar
Suppes, Patrick (1978), “The Plurality of Science”, in Asquith, Peter and Hacking, Ian (eds.), PSA 1978, Vol. 2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 3–16.Google Scholar
Trout, J.D. (1991), “Reductionism and the Unity of Science: Introductory Essay”, in Boyd, Richard et al. (eds.), Philosophy of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 387–392.Google Scholar
Vance, Russell E. (1996), “Heroic Antireductionism and Genetics: A Tale of One Science”, Heroic Antireductionism and Genetics: A Tale of One Science 63 (Proceedings): S36–S45.Google Scholar
Van der Steen, Wim J. (1993), “Towards Disciplinary Disintegration in Biology”, Towards Disciplinary Disintegration in Biology 8:259–276.Google Scholar
Wagner, Peter J. (1998), “A Likelihood Approach for Evaluating Estimates of Phylogenetic Relationships Among Fossil Taxa”, A Likelihood Approach for Evaluating Estimates of Phylogenetic Relationships Among Fossil Taxa 24:430–449.Google Scholar
Wylie, Allison (1999), “Rethinking Unity as a Working Hypothesis: How Archaeologists Exploit the Disunities of Science”, Rethinking Unity as a Working Hypothesis: How Archaeologists Exploit the Disunities of Science 7:293–317.Google Scholar