RACHEL LAUDAN* THE ROLE OF METHODOLOGY IN LYELL'S SCIENCE Most discussions of Lyell's scientific methodology, from the
Views 7,932 Downloads 2,191 File size 22MB
Recommend Stories
Citation preview
RACHEL LAUDAN* THE ROLE OF METHODOLOGY IN LYELL'S SCIENCE
Most discussions of Lyell's scientific methodology, from the nineteenth century to the present, have focused on his'uniformitarianism,.' Indeed most discussions of geological methotlology as a whole ar least in rhe British
tradition, have lollowed this pattern.2 Since whewell coined the terms 'uniformitariun' ancl 'catastrophist' to identify what he saw as opposing geological canlps, this classification has dominated rhe analysis of the mcthodology ol gcology. rn the course of a certury ancr a half, the possible mcanings ol the two concepts have been teased out with increasing care, and there norv exisrs a sophisticated bocly of lirerarure healing in these terms wirh the philosophical problems of gcology. There has, horvever, been onc- unfortunate consequence ot'the large quantity and higlt qrrality ol'scholarly analysis clevotecl to spelling out the ramifications ol the unilorrnirarian position. Such an alrproach, despite the clarification that it brings, rends to separate issues in thc methodologl,ot'gcology from issues in
the general
rrrethodology
,a;Ji:-,!lf.i:tl.rcchnic
ol
science.
clcarly an examinat.ion of
tnsrirure arrd Srare University, Deparrmenr or.Hisrory, Blacksburg,
the vA
_I
am grateful to Stephen Brush, Cercl Buchdahl, Arrhur Donovan, David Ftull and Michael Ruse tor conlments on an earlier-version of this paper. The paper is one outcome of prolongcd discussions with Jon Hodge and Larry, Laudan a'bout trre inierprerarion or r_v.ii;i ceology. I wish I could blirhr-ly acknowledge my debt to rhem, as is comrnon in prefaces, while accepring all blame for mistakus as mine, bui at liast in the major ureun.n,, ;i ihe'paper, though not in specifics, this would bc disingenuous. \t,hat I can dy'u ttianr riy.;ii;d;;;i., alowing nre to publish what is essentially one chapter from our anticipated volume, una iior.irnportanr, for demonstrating in all our conversations on California beaches, p*ntvf"rni" i"kes and English lawns' as rvell as ntore conventional academic venues, thar inteilecrual iira r.uilv.o1 be and at irs
iririiil it
best is, a cooperative venture. 'The term was lirst coined by william whewell in his review of the second volume of C. Lyell, The Principles of Ceology,3 vols. (I. ondon, t 830 3) in ttte (iSlZ), 103 _ 32. neuiol* euarrerly -in
ii
whewell further explicated his understanding of rhe rerm Tne phiiositpiy iJ: *, Intluctive (London, 1847), part l,_p,p. 665 -rdifirst published $aol ,"a-i/i,:;ry-itf the Inductive Sclezces (London, 1857), pan UI, pp. 506-18, (iirst published in lg37). ioi"rtre rwenriethcentury discussion, the tbllowing works are srandard: w- F. cannon,.The unitormitarian-
s_ciences
catasrrophist debare', /srs 5l (1960), 3g - 55; R. Hookyaas, Natural Law und Divine Miracle: The Principle oJ'unifonnitv in ceorogv, Biologv, and rhiorogy,2nd edn tr-.ia.nJsiii; S. J. courd, 'ls urriiormirarianism necessary?', Americin Journar oJ iiier." zor tistrsi, Rudwick, 'unitbrmity and progression: reflections on rhe structure ol georogical rh;;ry i, rtre age of Lyett,, D. H- D. Roller 1ed.), perspectives in rhe History oJ {cienci o,,i (okrahoma: Norman, l97l); L. c. wilson, Churtes Lyeil: The years ro tSrl: The Revorution iiceotoSl (New
ii{:i;M. tirhiiiix,
il
Haven, 1972).
geologists and philosophers, from Crove Karl Cilben, William Morris Davis and T. ^-rAmerican Chamberlin to David Kitts have tended to try alternative analyses. Alnrost norhing is known of rhe methodological tradirions of geology in other counrries.
ll, No.3, pp.2t5 -249, l9s.t. Britain.
stud. Hist. Phil. sci., Vol. Printed in Creat
ll5
0019-i681/82/0i0215-15 s03.00/0 perganron press Lr