Transcript - D-Scholarship@Pitt

DAVID HULL THROUGH HIS OWN PHILOSOPHICAL LENS
NAOMI KASTURIARACHI AND DR. ANDREW INKPEN
ARCHIVAL SCHOLARS RESEARCH AWARD
DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
Introduction
The Importance of Conceptual Variation
Summary
What is the role of a philosopher in science?
This project investigates the ways that philosopher David Hull (1935-2010) put his own
philosophical approach into practice. Hull famously argued for an evolutionary theory of
scientific change, according to which, conceptual and social change in science—like
natural selection—requires heritability, variation, and differential fitness. I use this as an
interpretive framework to highlight Hull’s own contributions to science and philosophy
as demonstrated in the contents of his archival papers.
Hull demonstrated how the philosopher can play a normative role in science.
A philosopher can do more than simply describe what science is, but instead
say how it should be. Hull argued that (just as for natural selection) variation
was required for scientific change. Like heritability and fitness, we can use
variation as a way to think about Hull’s contributions. There are examples
throughout Hull’s archive of his desire to ensure that social and conceptual
variation wasn’t suppressed.
Who was David Hull?
Hull split his career between the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (1964-1984) and
Northwestern University (1984-2000). He advocated a novel approach, combining
historical, philosophical, and social studies of science, and founded the field of modern
philosophy of biology.1 He made significant contributions to science. This project will
specifically focus on his contributions to scientific change.
Variation in Correspondence
The topical variation within Hull’s correspondence is astonishingly high. This,
in one way, demonstrates his commitment to variability. Figure 1 features a
graph illustrating the number of letters in Hull’s archive with a particular theme
for five different philosophers. Each philosopher had a unique theme they
corresponded about the most with Hull. This illustrates a high amount of
variability.
My Interpretive Framework
We can appreciate Hull’s contributions to science and philosophy by using his approach
to scientific change as an interpretative framework.2 Hull’s philosophy of scientific
change hypothesized that scientific change works in a similar way to evolution by natural
selection. He believed that scientific change is a social process in which scientists interact
so that a variety of ideas are exchanged and passed on to future generations. For
Hull, “science is essentially social”: individuals “can learn about the world in which
they live by confronting it directly, but if science is to be cumulative, social transmission
is necessary.”3 Scientific change requires heritability, variation, and differential fitness.
Below I show how Hull demonstrated these three criteria through archival examples.
Heritability and Fitness
Heritability and Fitness
In order for conceptual change to occur, there must be social heritability (i.e., the
transmission of concepts from one person to another) and differential fitness (i.e., some
concepts must ‘out compete’ others). In order to increase conceptual fitness, scientists
must behave in ways that will increase the likelihood of their ideas being inherited. This
requires that they balance having good relationships with other scientists, giving credit to
the influence of their peers while simultaneously asserting their own ideas. Hull’s own
contributions can be understood similarly, as he ensured that his ideas were inherited
and increased his own conceptual fitness.
Hull as a Normative Scientist
Hull’s commitment to variation ensured that no one’s ideas were illegitimately
suppressed. This included the ideas of gay or lesbian philosophers. During the
1970-1990’s, anti-sodomy laws were present in certain states. In one letter to
Jane Maienschein on October 31, 1997, Hull was angry that the History of
Science Society was having a conference in Arizona (an anti-sodomy laws state).
Maienschein explained to Hull that the city the conference was being held
protected gay rights.6 Hull advocated for meetings to not be held in antisodomic states in the Philosophy of Science Association, Society of Systematic
Zoology, International Society for the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies
of Biology, and History of Science Society. Additionally, Hull also fought
Figure 1: A graph representing specific philosophers within the David L. Hull Papers versus the distinct against “gay purges”, where gay students and faculty were persecuted at Indiana
counts of dates (representative of an individual letter within the collection). The different theme of each letter University and University of Wisconsin Milwaukee.7
is represented by a different color. This graph shows that each philosopher has a different theme with the
highest frequency of dates, therefore indicating different themes of specialization.
Future Directions
In the future, letters from a larger sample of philosophers within Hull’s
archives will be analyzed and graphed to ensure that the pattern of
variability is conserved. Additionally, further evidence for heritability and
conceptual inclusive fitness will be searched for.
Interpreting Hull Through a Hullsian Lens
Training students in his own ideas
Hull increased his conceptual fitness through mentoring students, thereby passing down
his ideas. In a letter from philosopher of biology, Dr. John Beatty, dated February 9,
1975, Beatty asks if he would be able to study under Hull during 1975-76. Hull agrees.
In the letter, Hull describes how he is teaching a course in which he discusses “the
possibility of an evolutionary analysis of science.”4 Hull is teaching his own theory of
scientific change to students he himself teaches, therefore increasing his conceptual
fitness.
I would like to thank the Special Collections Department at the Hillman
Library for making this research possible, especially librarian Lance
Lugar from the Archives of Scientific Philosophy.
References
1Godfrey-Smith,
Professional committees
Hull headed several committees, which also increased his conceptual fitness. He was the
president of the Society of Systematic Zoology (1984-1985), the Philosophy of Science
Association (1985-1986), and co-founded the International Society for History,
Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology ( President in 1991-1992).
Unintentional versus Intentional
My analysis of Hull doesn’t commit him to purposefully increasing his own fitness. It was
the by-product of being a good philosopher and teacher. As Hull put it, “Flour beetles
are unaware that such a thing as genetic inclusive fitness even exists let alone capable of
performing the required calculations. Scientists are not appreciably different.”5
Figure 2: A photograph of David Hull and Michael Ruse. The two were very close friends.
As
indicated by Figure 1, Hull spoke to Ruse the most about Philosophy of Science in general. They also
talked a great deal about personal matters.
P. “David Hull (1935-2010).” Biology and Philosophy 25: 749-750.
2Hull, D. 1988. Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual
Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago.
3Hull, D. 1988. “A Mechanism and Its Metaphysics: An Evolutionary Account of the Social
and Conceptual Development of Science.” Biology and Philosophy 3: 127.
4 Letter from John Beatty, Box 6, Folder 2. David L. Hull Papers, 1965-2004, ASP.2005.01,
Archives for Scientific Philosophy, Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh.
5Hull, D. 1988. “A Mechanism and Its Metaphysics: An Evolutionary Account of the Social
and Conceptual Development of Science.” Biology and Philosophy 3: 128.
6Letter from Jane Maienschein, Box 6, Folder 2. David L. Hull Papers, 1965-2004,
ASP.2005.01, Archives for Scientific Philosophy, Special Collections, University of
Pittsburgh.
7Overmann, R. 2000. “David Hull, Hod Carrier.” Biology and Philosophy 15: 311-20.