Biology & Philosophy

, 34:24 | Cite as

Overcoming the underdetermination of specimens

  • Caitlin Donahue WylieEmail author
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Paleobiology and Philosophy


Philosophers of science are well aware that theories are underdetermined by data. But what about the data? Scientific data are selected and processed representations or pieces of nature. What is useless context and what is valuable specimen, as well as how specimens are processed for study, are not obvious or predetermined givens. Instead, they are decisions made by scientists and other research workers, such as technicians, that produce different outcomes for the data. Vertebrate fossils provide a revealing case of this data-processing, because they are embedded in rock that often matches the fossils’ color and texture, requiring an expert eye to judge where the fossil/context interface is. Fossil preparators then permanently define this interface by chiseling away the material they identify as rock. As a result, fossil specimens can emerge in multiple possible forms depending on the preparator’s judgment, skill, and chosen tools. A prepared fossil then is not yet data but potential data, following Leonelli’s (Philos Sci 82:810–821, 2015. relational framework in which data are defined as evidence that scientists have used to support a proposed theory. This paper draws on ethnographic evidence to assess how scientists overcome this underdetermination of specimens, as potential data, in addition to the underdetermination of theories and of data, to successfully construct specimen-based knowledge. Among other strategies, paleontology maintains a division of labor between data-makers and theory-makers. This distinction serves to justify the omission of preparators’ nonstandard, individualized techniques from scientific publications. This separation has benefits for both scientists and technicians; however, it restricts knowledge production by preventing scientists from understanding how the pieces of nature they study were processed into researchable specimens.


Underdetermination Scientific practice Paleontology Material culture Specimens 



I am grateful for thoughtful feedback from two reviewers as well as Adrian Currie, Emily McTernan, Robin Andreasen, Jonathan Birch, and attendees of the 2017 Philosophy of Paleobiology workshop at Dinosaur Provincial Park.


  1. Barley SR, Bechky BA, Nelsen BJ (2016) What do technicians mean when they talk about professionalism? An ethnography of speaking. Res Sociol Organ 47:125–160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bokulich A (2018) Using models to correct data: paleodiversity and the fossil record. Synthese. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chapman R, Wylie A (2016) Evidential reasoning in archaeology. Bloomsbury Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Charig AJ, Greenaway F, Milner AC et al (1986) Archaeopteryx is not a forgery. Science (80-) 232:622–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cleland CE (2002) Methodological and epistemic differences between historical science and experimental science. Philos Sci 69:447–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Creswell J (2007) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  7. Currie A (2015) Marsupial lions and methodological omnivory: function, success and reconstruction in paleobiology. Biol Philos 30:187–209. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Currie A (2018) Rock, bone, and ruin: an optimist’s guide to the historical sciences. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daston L, Galison P (2007) Objectivity. Zone Books, BrooklynGoogle Scholar
  10. Doing P (2009) Velvet revolution at the synchrotron. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Douglas H (2004) The irreducible complexity of objectivity. Synthese 138:453–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Galison P (1987) How experiments end. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  13. Galison P (1997) Image and logic: a material culture of microphysics. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  14. Grande L, Rieppel O (eds) (1994) Interpreting the hierarchy of nature. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  15. Hodder I (ed) (2000) Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Holtorf C (2002) Notes on the life history of a pot sherd. J Mater Cult 7:49–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoyle F, Wickramasinghe C (1982) Proofs the life is cosmic. Mem Inst Fundam Stud 1:1–155Google Scholar
  18. Hoyle F, Wickramasinghe C (1986a) The case for life as a cosmic phenomenon. Nature 322:509–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoyle F, Wickramasinghe C (1986b) Archaeopteryx, the primordial bird: a case of fossil forgery. Christopher Davies Publishers, SwanseaGoogle Scholar
  20. Kiernan D (2013) The girls of atomic city. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuhn TS (1996) The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd edn. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Latour B (1987) Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Latour B (1999) Circulating reference: sampling the soil in the Amazon forest. In: Latour B (ed) Pandora’s hope: essays on the reality of science studies. Harvard University Press, London, pp 24–79Google Scholar
  24. Latour B, Woolgar S (1986) Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  25. Law J (1994) Organizing modernity: social ordering and social theory. Blackwell, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Leonelli S (2008) Circulating evidence across research contexts: the locality of data and claims in model organism research. Working Papers on The Nature of Evidence: How Well Do “Facts” Travel? 25/08. London School of Economics, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Leonelli S (2015) What counts as scientific data? A relational framework. Philos Sci 82:810–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leonelli S (2016) Data-centric biology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leonelli S (2018) The time of data: time-scales of data use in the life sciences. Philos Sci 85:741–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nichols JD (1987) The road to trinity. Morrow, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Okasha S (2000) The underdetermination of theory by data and the “strong programme” in the sociology of knowledge. Int Stud Philos Sci 14:283–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Porter TM (1995) Trust in numbers: the pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  33. Sepkoski D (2005) Stephen Jay Gould, Jack Sepkoski, and the “quantitative revolution” in American paleobiology. J Hist Biol 38:209–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sepkoski D (2012) Rereading the fossil record: the growth of paleobiology as an evolutionary discipline. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shapin S (1989) The invisible technician. Am Sci 77:554–563Google Scholar
  36. Star SL, Strauss A (1999) Layers of silence, arenas of voice: the ecology of visible and invisible work. Comput Support Coop Work 8:9–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Traweek S (1988) Beamtimes and lifetimes: the world of high energy physicists. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Watkins R, Hoyle F, Wickramasinghe C et al (1985a) Archaeopteryx: a photographic study. Br J Photogr 132:264–266Google Scholar
  39. Watkins R, Hoyle F, Wickramasinghe C et al (1985b) Archaeopteryx—a further comment. Br J Photogr 132:358–359Google Scholar
  40. Whybrow PJ (1982) Preparation of the cranium of the holotype of Archaeopteryx lithographica from the collections of the British Museum (Natural History). Neues Jahrb Fur Geol Und Palaontol 3:184–192Google Scholar
  41. Whybrow PJ (1986) Rare controversy. New Sci 111:62Google Scholar
  42. Wylie A (1997) The engendering of archaeology: refiguring feminist science studies. Osiris 12:80–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wylie CD (2009) Preparation in action: paleontological skill and the role of the fossil preparator. In: Brown MA, Kane JF, Parker WG (eds) Methods in fossil preparation: proceedings of the first annual fossil preparation and collections symposium, pp 3–12Google Scholar
  44. Wylie CD (2013) Invisible technicians: a sociology of scientific work, workers, and specimens in paleontology laboratories. University of Cambridge, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Wylie CD (2015) “The artist’s piece is already in the stone”: constructing creativity in paleontology laboratories. Soc Stud Sci 45:31–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wylie CD (2016a) Overcoming underdetermination. In: Extinct. Accessed 10 Oct 2018
  47. Wylie CD (2016b) Invisibility as a mechanism of social ordering: defining groups among laboratory workers. In: Bangham J, Kaplan J (eds) Invisible labour. Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin. Accessed 18 Jan 2019
  48. Wylie A (2017) How archaeological evidence bites back: strategies for putting old data to work in new ways. Sci Technol Hum Values 42:203–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wylie CD (2018) Trust in technicians in paleontology laboratories. Sci Technol Hum Values 43(2):324–348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Program in Science, Technology, and SocietyUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations