It was noted inwards prior posts that in that place is a swell multifariousness of inquiry frameworks inwards the social sciences, tog...
It was noted inwards prior posts that in that place is a swell multifariousness of inquiry frameworks inwards the social sciences, together with that in that place is much to live on gained yesteryear attempting to empathise the social processes through which these frameworks alter together with develop over fourth dimension (link, link).
Is it possible to acquire to a greater extent than specific well-nigh how the diverse inquiry frameworks are related to each other, how similar or unlike they are, together with how far apart they are inwards the infinite of the full universe of scientific inquiry frameworks?
Here is an intriguing idea. We powerfulness shout upwards of a inquiry framework equally the chemical compound of a laid upwards of "genes" inwards the shape of a collection of ideas together with practices through which scientists approach their studies of the world. And nosotros powerfulness define the similarity or deviation betwixt 2 inquiry frameworks inwards the means that geneticists define the similarity of 2 mammalian species, inwards damage of the flat of shared genetic cloth they possess.
On this approach, the inquiry framework (methodology) constitutes a "code" which the immature scientist learns through advanced grooming inwards the discipline. The resulting trunk of theory together with inquiry findings is the phenotype that results from the human face of the genotype through the activities of individuals together with groups of scientists inside the social together with political surroundings of the inquiry community.
The genotype of a methodology powerfulness consist of items similar these:
- ontological assumptions
- investigatory strategies
- practices of scientific collaboration
- experimental designs
- ideas well-nigh goodness explanation
- procedures for evaluating evidence
By invoking the ideas of genotypes, phenotypes, together with ecologies into the domain of inquiry methodologies it is tempting to regard whether other aspects of the evolutionary image are applicable equally well, including the thought of development through selection.
Key hither is the enquiry of the mechanisms of fitness together with alternative that powerfulness live on at operate inwards the plain of science. Do methodologies compete for survival together with reproduction? Are in that place alternative pressures at operate inwards the domain of epistemology? Do scientific inquiry frameworks "evolve" through small-scale adjustments at the "gene" flat (components of methodology at the flat of theory together with practice)? If so, create those alternative processes Pb to the development of methodologies amend suited to discovering truth, or create they Pb instead to methods that amend serve the proximate interests of researchers together with micro inquiry communities?
One powerfulness struggle that the 2 possibilities -- alternative pressure level together with veridicality -- converge. Researchers role together with refine methodologies based on their elbow grease to generate publications, influence, together with funding. One methodology is to a greater extent than "fit" than but about other insofar equally it contributes to comparative wages inwards these related outcomes. But methodologies generate influence, publication, together with funding inwards proportion to the collective judgment of the adept community that they are creating novel insight together with to a greater extent than true representations of the world. So alternative processes Pb to greater veridicality.
This would live on an agreeable outcome -- the concrete exercise of scientific discipline leads mostly to greater levels of true representation of the natural together with social world. But is it plausible? Or does the history together with sociology of scientific discipline propose that the factors that select for inquiry methodologies are less epistemic together with to a greater extent than situational or political? Does the physical care for of scientific discipline favor innovations that align amongst received views? Do scientific careers depend to a greater extent than on non epistemic factors than epistemic qualities? Does the physical care for of scientific discipline favor politically acceptable findings ("fracking is harmless" rather than "fracking causes micro-seismic activity")? Are in that place contrarian "predator" practices at pes that actively contrive to force scientific findings away from truth (climate deniers, smoking manufacture advocates; Naomi Oreskes, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming)?
There are visible differences betwixt biological development together with the development of complexes of ideas together with methods, of course. Biological development takes house through random variation at the genetic level, whereas theories together with methods are dependent to pattern yesteryear the scientists who develop them. Functional adaptation is the outcome of a blind physical care for of alternative inwards the biological world, whereas it is an intended number inwards the realm of theories together with methods. And it is possible to define ecological fitness to a greater extent than exactly together with mathematically inwards the biological realm than it is inwards the realm of scientific discipline together with culture.
It volition live on noted that this approach has a lot inwards mutual amongst the evolutionary approach to economic science together with the development of firms. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 fundamental text inwards this approach is Richard Nelson together with Sidney Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Richard Dawkins explored a similar sentiment inwards The Selfish Gene when he considered "memes" equally cultural counterparts to genes inwards the biological world.
COMMENTS