A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs. These beliefs form the foundation of the "educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice". The nature of the "rigorous and rigid" preparation helps ensure that the received beliefs are firmly fixed in the student's mind. Scientists take great pains to defend the assumption that scientists know what the world is like...To this end, "normal science" will often suppress novelties which undermine its foundations. Research (...) is therefore not about discovering the unknown, but rather "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education". (shrink)

Thomas S. Kuhn's classic book is now available with a new index.

Few of Stephen Jay Gould’s accomplishments in evolutionary biology have received more attention than his hierarchical theory of evolution, which postulates a causal discontinuity between micro- and macroevolutionary events. But Gould’s hierarchical theory was his second attempt to supply a theoretical framework for macroevolutionary studies—and one he did not inaugurate until the mid-1970s. In this paper, I examine Gould’s first attempt: a proposed fusion of theoretical morphology, multivariate biometry and the experimental study of adaptation in fossils. This early “macroevolutionary synthesis” (...) was predicated on the notion that parallelism and convergence dominate the history of higher taxa, and moreover, that they can be explained in terms of adaptation leading to mechanical improvement. In this paper, I explore the origins and contents of Gould’s first macroevolutionary synthesis, as well as the reasons for its downfall. In addition, I consider how various developments during the mid-1970s led Gould to identify hierarchy and constraint as the leading themes of macroevolutionary studies—and adaptation as a macroevolutionary red herring. (shrink)

It is shown in a literature review, that in the Typostrophic Theory autonomous mechanisms in the organism are considered as the factors which play a decisive role in orienting and controlling the evolutionary process. Selection is a controlling factor of only minor importance. The Synthetic Theory, on the other side, says that phylogenetic changes are not random or controlled by “internal factors” but can always be considered as adaptive remodellings. They are achieved by selection acting on the variation within populations. (...) Ecological, historical and “bautechnische” factors are considered as limiting mechanisms in the evolutionary process. They are discussed in detail in the text.In einer Literaturübersicht wird gezeigt, daß nach der Typostrophentheorie autonome Mechanismen im Organismus die entscheidenden Faktoren sind, die den Ablauf der Evolution steuern und kontrollieren. Die Selektion spielt als lenkender Faktor nur eine untergeordnete Rolle. Nach der Synthetischen Evolutionstheorie dagegen verlaufen die phylogenetischen Veränderungen nicht zufällig oder durch interne Faktoren gelenkt, sondern sind stets adaptive Umkonstruierungen, die durch die Wirkung der Selektion auf die Variation innerhalb von Populationen erreicht werden. Ökologische, historische und bautechnische Faktoren werden als die Evolution limitierende Faktoren im Text näher diskutiert. (shrink)

It is shown in a literature review, that in the Typostrophic Theory autonomous mechanisms in the organism are considered as the factors which play a decisive role in orienting and controlling the evolutionary process. Selection is a controlling factor of only minor importance. The Synthetic Theory, on the other side, says that phylogenetic changes are not random or controlled by “internal factors” but can always be considered as adaptive remodellings. They are achieved by selection acting on the variation within populations. (...) Ecological, historical and “bautechnische” factors are considered as limiting mechanisms in the evolutionary process. They are discussed in detail in the text. (shrink)

From the early nineteenth century, the successful use of fossils in stratigraphy oriented paleontology towards geology. The consequent marginalising of biological objectives was countered in the twentieth century by the rise of ‘Paläobiologie’, first in the German cultural area and only later, as ‘paleobiology’, in the anglophone world. Several kinds of paleobiological research flourished internationally after the Second World War, among them the novel field of ‘paleoecology’. Within this field there were attempts to apply functional morphology to the problematical cases (...) of fossil organisms, for which functions cannot be observed directly. This article describes the origins of the kind of functional inference for fossils that I proposed in 1961 as the method of ‘paradigms’. Here I summarize some of my ‘worked exemplars’, which were intended to show the paradigm method in action. These case-studies were all taken from the paleontologically important phylum of the Brachiopoda, but the method was claimed to have much wider implications for the interpretation of the fossil record in terms of adaptive evolution. This article takes the history of the paradigm method as far as the late 1960s. I hope to trace, in a sequel, its ambivalent fate during the 1970s and beyond, when for example Gould’s critique of ‘the adaptationist programme’ and the rise of computer-based quantitative methods for the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record led to the relative eclipse of functional morphology in paleontology. (shrink)