Abstract
The interpretation and analysis of anomalies is itself theory-dependent, as illustrated in the case of the ox phos debate in biochemistry in the 1960s. Here, the perceived threat of six anomalies to an existing research lineage depended on perspective, or Kuhnian paradigm. The ambiguous status of anomalies sharpens the problem of Kuhnian incommensurability. But analysis of the details of the historical case—one way to pursue an empirical philosophy of science—also indicate a possible solution. The asymmetric organization of multiple anomalies strongly indicated that disagreement had shifted from an intraparadigm to an interparadigm level, where modes of effective argument and use of evidence differ. This diagnostic awareness of the type of disagreement can orient discourse and allow investigators to develop and present evidence appropriately. I briefly extend the results of this historical case analysis to Darwin’s synthesis and to gendered bias in craniology, to indicate the prospective generality of the analysis of anomaly asymmetry.
An earlier version of this paper was presented as “Anomalies in Ox-Phos: Six of One Theory, a Half-Dozen of Another,” at 2003 meeting of the International Society for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Biology in Guelph, Ontario. My appreciation to Lindley Darden and Kevin Elliot for fruitful discussion of that presentation.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Allchin, D.: Paradigms, populations and problem fields: approaches to disagreement. PSA 1990(1), 53–66 (1990)
Allchin, D.: Resolving disagreement in science. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago (1991)
Allchin, D.: How do you falsify a question? Crucial tests versus crucial demonstrations. PSA 1992(1), 74–88 (1992)
Allchin, D.: The super-bowl and the ox-phos controversy: winner-take-all competition in philosophy of science. PSA 1994(1), 22–33 (1994)
Allchin, D.: Cellular and theoretical chimeras: piecing together how cells process energy. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 27, 31–41 (1996)
Allchin, D.: A 20th-century phlogiston: constructing error and differentiating domains. Perspect. Sci. 5, 81–127 (1997)
Allchin, D.: Error types. Perspect. Sci. 9, 38–59 (2001)
Bechtel, W., Richardson, R.: Discovering Complexity. IT Press, Cambridge (2010)
Brush, S.G.: Suggestions for the study of science. In: Gavroglu, K., Renn, J. (eds.) Positioning the History of Science [essays in honor of S. S. Schweber]. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 248, pp. 13–25 (2007)
Brush, S.G.: Making 20th Century Science: How Theories Became Knowledge. Oxford Unviersity Press, New York (2015)
Callebaut, W.: Taking the Naturalistic Turn: How the Real Philosophy of Science is Done. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1993)
Darden, L.: Theory Change in Science: Strategies form Mendelian Genetics. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1991)
Donovan, A., Laudan, L., Laudan, R.: Scrutinizing Science: Empirical Studies of Scientific Change. Springer, Berlin (1988)
Gilbert, G.N., Mulkay, M.: Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1984)
Glymour, C.: Theory and Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1980)
Hoyningen-Heune, P.: Restructuring Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1993)
Hull, D.: Science as a Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1988)
Hull, D. Testing philosophical claims about science. In PSA 1992, vol. 2, D. Hull, M. Forbes and K. Okruhlik (eds.), East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 468-475 (1993)
Janssen, M.: COI stories. Perspect. Sci. 10, 457–522 (2001)
Latour, B.: Science in Action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1987)
Lehninger, A.L.: Oxidative phosphorylation in submitochondrial systems. Fed. Proc. 19, 952–962 (1960)
Lightman, A., Gingerich, O.: When do anomalies begin? Science 55, 690–695 (1992)
Longino, H.: Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (1990)
Losee, J.: A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1972)
Losee, J.: Philosophy of Science and Historical Enquiry. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1987)
Losee, J.: Theories on the Scrap Heap: Scientists and Philosophers on the Falsification, Rejection and Replacement of Theories. Pittsburgh University Press, Pittsburgh (2005)
Merton, R.K.: The normative structure of science. In: The Sociology of Science, pp. 267–78. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1973)
Mitchell, P.: Coupling of phosphorylation to electron and hydrogen transfer by a chemi-osmotic type of mechanism. Nature 191, 144–148 (1961)
Nickles, T.: Philosophy of science and history of science. Osiris 10, 139–163 (1995)
Robinson, J.D.: The chemiosmotic hypothesis of energy coupling and the path of scientific opportunity. Perspect. Biol. Med. 27, 367–383 (1984)
Weber, B.: Glynn and the conceptual development of the chemiosmotic theory: a retrospective and prospective view. Biosci. Rep. 11, 577–617 (1991)
Weber, M.: Incommensurability and theory comparison in experimental biology. Biol. Philos. 17, 155–169 (2002)
Wimsatt, W.C.: Re-Engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2007)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Allchin, D. (2015). Context-Dependent Anomalies and Strategies for Resolving Disagreement. In: Wagenknecht, S., Nersessian, N., Andersen, H. (eds) Empirical Philosophy of Science. Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, vol 21. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18600-9_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18600-9_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-18599-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-18600-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)