================= HES POSTING ================= 
 
Some subscribers to this list may find the following paper abstract of 
"Methodology and the Birth of Modern Cosmological Inquiry" by Gale & Shanks 
of interest.  The abstract was posted to the historical sciences list run 
by Bob O'Hara, and it deals with some of the issues recently discussed on 
HES. 
 
Greg Ransom 
 
******************************************** 
 
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 12:47:08 CST 
From: [log in to unmask] To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Founder's Effect in Cosmology, ABS 
 
Abstract of 
 
METHODOLOGY AND THE BIRTH OF MODERN COSMOLOGICAL INQUIRY 
 
by 
George Gale 
University of Missouri-Kansas City 
 
Niall Shanks 
East Tennessee State University 
 
To appear: 1996: _Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Physics_ 
 
        The central concern of this paper is with the ways in which issues, 
questions and debates in the domain of the philosophy of science can 
influence the birth, and subsequent development of a science.  The case 
study to be discussed is that of modern cosmology.  We will argue that 
the study of events in the early history of modern cosmology affords 
ample evidence of the many ways in which philosophy of science and 
science are inextricably intertwined. 
        To the extent that we are able to make our case we will (a) provide 
evidence against the adequacy of rationalist reconstructions of the 
history of science that pretend that science develops in a philosophical 
vacuum, without regard to the conceptual and methodological debates 
that are standard fare among philosophers of science; and (b) provide 
evidence against the intellectual adequacy of (currently popular) social 
constructivist attempts to "sociologize" the analysis of events in the 
history of science in ways that downplay or eliminate the role of 
philosophy of science and its history as factors shaping the development 
of science. 
        It turns out that the following two questions are central to 
understanding the nature of modern cosmology: 
[1]  Why were events surrounding the birth of modern cosmology marked 
by vigorous indeed, sometimes downright raucous philosophical debates? 
[2]  Why was the subsequent development of modern cosmology so long 
affected by the outcome of the debate? 
The discussion which follows attempts to answer these questions, in 
large part, by providing an historical narrative.  Since many of the 
elements of the historical narrative are still not widely known, the 
narrative should be of some intrinsic interest, independently of its 
interest as part of the answer to the two questions. 
        In our discussion of the second question, we will argue that there 
is an interesting explanatory analogy to be drawn between certain 
features of the initial community of cosmologists, and certain features of 
initial biological-species communities. Our proposed analogy trades upon 
principles developed by evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, and called by 
him the "founder effect."  We claim that events in the early history of 
cosmology manifest analogs of biological "founder effect" phenomena. 
        We conclude by suggesting that the situation in modern 
cosmology's origin may be generalizable.  If this is correct, then to the 
extent that modern cosmology manifests founder effect phenomena, so 
also will the many scientific communities which originate as it did, in 
initially small populations of investigator -- populations that need not 
reflect the conceptual and methodological diversity found in larger, more 
mature branches of science.  In order to discuss the first of our two 
questions, we begin with a brief historical prologue. 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]