Fossils with Feathers and Philosophy of Science
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Systematic Biologists..
The last half century of paleornithological research has transformed the way that biologists perceive the evolutionary history of birds. This transformation has been driven, since 1969, by a series of exciting fossil discoveries combined with intense scientific debate over how best to interpret these discoveries. Ideally, as evidence accrues and results accumulate, interpretive scientific agreement forms. But this has not entirely happened in the debate over avian origins: the accumulation of scientific evidence and analyses has had some effect, but not a conclusive one, in terms of resolving the question of avian origins. Although the majority of biologists have come to accept that birds are dinosaurs, there is lingering and, in some quarters, strident opposition to this view. In order to both understand the ongoing disagreement about avian origins and generate a prediction about the future of the debate, here we use a revised model of scientific practice to assess the current and historical state of play surrounding the topic of bird evolutionary origins. Many scientists are familiar with the metascientific scholars Sir Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, and these are the primary figures that have been appealed to so far, in prior attempts to assess the dispute. But we demonstrate that a variation of Imre Lakatos's model of progressive versus degenerative research programmes provides a novel and productive assessment of the debate. We establish that a refurbished Lakatosian account both explains the intractability of the dispute and predicts a likely outcome for the debate about avian origins. In short, here, we offer a metascientific tool for rationally assessing competing theories-one that allows researchers involved in seemingly intractable scientific disputes to advance their debates.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2019 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2019 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:68 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Systematic biology - 68(2019), 5 vom: 01. Sept., Seite 840-851 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Havstad, Joyce C [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Aves |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 09.01.2020 Date Revised 09.03.2020 published: Print Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1093/sysbio/syz010 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM293794286 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM293794286 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225080102.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1093/sysbio/syz010 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n0979.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM293794286 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)30753719 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Havstad, Joyce C |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Fossils with Feathers and Philosophy of Science |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2019 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 09.01.2020 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 09.03.2020 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Systematic Biologists. | ||
| 520 | |a The last half century of paleornithological research has transformed the way that biologists perceive the evolutionary history of birds. This transformation has been driven, since 1969, by a series of exciting fossil discoveries combined with intense scientific debate over how best to interpret these discoveries. Ideally, as evidence accrues and results accumulate, interpretive scientific agreement forms. But this has not entirely happened in the debate over avian origins: the accumulation of scientific evidence and analyses has had some effect, but not a conclusive one, in terms of resolving the question of avian origins. Although the majority of biologists have come to accept that birds are dinosaurs, there is lingering and, in some quarters, strident opposition to this view. In order to both understand the ongoing disagreement about avian origins and generate a prediction about the future of the debate, here we use a revised model of scientific practice to assess the current and historical state of play surrounding the topic of bird evolutionary origins. Many scientists are familiar with the metascientific scholars Sir Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, and these are the primary figures that have been appealed to so far, in prior attempts to assess the dispute. But we demonstrate that a variation of Imre Lakatos's model of progressive versus degenerative research programmes provides a novel and productive assessment of the debate. We establish that a refurbished Lakatosian account both explains the intractability of the dispute and predicts a likely outcome for the debate about avian origins. In short, here, we offer a metascientific tool for rationally assessing competing theories-one that allows researchers involved in seemingly intractable scientific disputes to advance their debates | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Aves | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Kuhn | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Lakatos | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Popper | |
| 650 | 4 | |a avian origins | |
| 650 | 4 | |a theropod hypothesis | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Smith, N Adam |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Systematic biology |d 1996 |g 68(2019), 5 vom: 01. Sept., Seite 840-851 |w (DE-627)NLM092550762 |x 1076-836X |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:68 |g year:2019 |g number:5 |g day:01 |g month:09 |g pages:840-851 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syz010 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 68 |j 2019 |e 5 |b 01 |c 09 |h 840-851 | ||