From crisis to normal science, and back again: Coming full “Kuhn cycle” in the career of Warren B. Hamilton

ABSTRACT In this paper, I use Thomas S. Kuhn’s model of scientific change to frame a brief, broad-brushed biographical sketch of the career of Warren B. Hamilton. I argue that Hamilton’s career can usefully be interpreted as encompassing a full “Kuhn cycle,” from a period of crisis in his early work, to one of normal science in midcareer, and back to something resembling crisis in his later research. Hamilton entered the field around mid-twentieth century when earth science can plausibly be described as being in a period of crisis. The then dominant fixist paradigm was facing an increasing number of difficulties, an alternative mobilist paradigm was being developed, and Hamilton played an important role in its development. The formulation of plate tectonics in the 1960s saw the overthrow of the fixist paradigm. This inaugurated a new phase of normal science as scientists worked within the new paradigm, refining it and applying it to different regions and various geological phenomena. Hamilton’s midcareer work fits largely into this category. Later, as the details of the plate-tectonic model became articulated more fully, and several of what Hamilton perceived as weakly supported conjectures became incorporated into the paradigm, problems began again to accumulate, and earth science, in Hamilton’s estimation, entered a new period of crisis. Radically new frameworks were now required, and Hamilton’s later work was dedicated principally to developing and articulating these frameworks and to criticizing mainstream views.

Predicting a Paradigm Shift: Exploring the Relationship Between Cognitive Style and the Paradigm-Relatedness of Design Solutions

Nearly 60 years ago, Thomas Kuhn revolutionized how we think of scientific discovery and innovation when he identified that scientific change can occur in incremental developments that improve upon existing solutions, or it can occur as drastic change in the form of a paradigm shift. In engineering design, both types of scientific change are critical when exploring the solution space. However, most methods of examining design outputs look at whether an idea is creative or not and not the type of creativity that is deployed or if we can predict what types of individuals or teams is more likely to develop a paradigm-shifting idea. Without knowing how to identify who will generate ideas that fit a certain paradigm, we do not know how to build teams that can develop ideas that better explore the solution space. This study provides the first attempt at answering this question through an empirical study with 60 engineering design student teams over the course of a 4- and 8-week design project. Specifically, we sought to identify the role of cognitive style using KAI score, derived from Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation (A-I) theory, on the paradigm-relatedness of ideas generated by individuals and teams. We also sought to investigate the role of crowdsourcing for measuring the paradigm-relatedness of design solutions. The results showed that KAI was positively related to a greater likelihood of an individual’s idea being categorized as paradigm-breaking. In addition, the team KAI diversity was also linked to a greater likelihood of teams’ ideas being categorized as paradigm-challenging. Finally, the results support the use of crowdsourcing for measuring the paradigm-relatedness of design solutions.

‘Science’ has always been evaluated. . . and will always be

Science has always been evaluated and will always be. The reasons justifying evaluations and the methods used to carry them have varied over time in relation to the many transformations of the sciences over the last fifty years. The uses of bibliometric methods are not limited to ‘evaluations’ of scientists and their institutions as they also provide a unique way to map global trends. One cannot stop evaluating science, but one can use the right tools at the right scale (individuals, institutions, countries) to better understand the dynamic of scientific change.

The Source of Epistemic Normativity: Scientific Change as an Explanatory Problem

In this paper, I present the problem of scientific change as an explanatory problem, that is, as a philosophical problem concerning what logical forms of explanation we should employ in order to understand the major conceptual ruptures throughout the history of science. I distinguish between two logical forms of explanation: (a) empirical-scientific and (b) normative explanations. Based on this distinction, I distinguish between the scientific and the liberal versions of naturalism concerning the issue of scientific change. I argue in favor of the latter by showing that normative explanations are indispensable in order to fully understand scientific change. I also argue that we can defend scientific rationality without violating the naturalistic framework which is dominant in contemporary analytic philosophy. I conclude that endorsing scientific realism within a naturalistic framework is the only option for preserving scientific rationality.

Revisiting Hull's Evolutionary Model of Science

Evolutionary models for scientific change are generally based on an analogy between scientific changes and biological evolution. Some dissimilarity cases, however, challenge this analogy. An issue discussed in this essay is that despite natural evolution, which is currently considered to be non-globally progressive, science is a phenomenon that we understand as globally progressive. David Hull's solution to this disanalogy is to trace the difference back to their environments, in which processes of natural selection and conceptual selection occur. I will provide two arguments against this solution, showing that Hull's formulation of natural selection prohibits him from removing the environment from the selection process. Then I point to a related tension in his theory, between realism and externalism in science, and give some suggestions to solve these tensions.

Bareback Sex in the Age of Preventative Medication: Rethinking the ‘Harms’ of HIV Transmission

The experiences of people living with HIV have been transformed over recent years. Advances in medical science have made the virus a manageable chronic condition, while eliminating the risk of onward transmission for those with access to treatment, something referred to as TasP (treatment as prevention) or U=U (undetectable equals untransmissible). More recently, the availability of PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis), alongside PEP (post-exposure prophylaxis), through the NHS has created the conditions for condomless sexual encounters to take place without the fear of HIV transmission associated with previous decades. Despite this, the criminal law has continued to frame HIV in terms of personal responsibility and bodily autonomy within the dominant narratives of danger, disease, and out-dated science. Doctrinal law has failed to keep pace with social and scientific change. Therefore, in this article, we provide a re-examination of the criminal issues relating to HIV transmission within this new landscape, arguing that it necessitates a shift in attitude, policy and doctrine. We specifically argue that HIV transmission does not meet the appropriate harm threshold to constitute GBH and that if criminal law is ultimately about preventing or regulating harm, the ongoing criminalisation of HIV transmission is counter to that aim.

A Rational Model for Agroecology as a Science

Agroecology was born as a competing theory to sciences derived from the Green Revolution like conventional agronomy or modernized animal husbandry. In recent years, several theoretical models or approaches have been developed in order to explain this science. However, any of them can explain its change or difference with its rival theories in a rational manner that allows assessment of its success. As a result, the aim of this study was to propose a rational model of scientific change based on main and auxiliary hypotheses. We found that seven basic principles have been formulated throughout theoretical books and papers as well as several auxiliary hypotheses that can be derived from them. These principles are as follows: (1) characteristic systemic principle of agroecology, (2) principle of biomimicry, (3) principle of biodiversity, (4) principle of specificity of agroecosystems, (5) principle of governance, (6) principle of socioecological resilience, and (7) principle of vulnerability. Also, three principles for food systems approach were retrieved. This model shows agroecology more like an organic theory that moves in different scales than a set of rival theories competing for success. However, a proper articulation and discussion of these basic principles is yet to be done.

Vadym Topachevsky, an outstanding zoologist and manager of science (to the re-searcher’s 90th anniversary)

The life of Vadym Oleksandrovych Topachevsky and his contribution to the development of science is considered. V. O. Topachevsky was the most famous palaeomammalogist of Eastern Europe, long-term head of the palaeontological department of the now National Museum of Natural History of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, director of Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology of the Ukrainian SSR, founder and editor-in-chief of a number of important Ukrainian zoological publications, and academician of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Vadym Oleksandrovych was at the origins of systematic palaeontological expeditions to key sites of the Quaternary period, participated in the development of serial collections of small mammals and of the research techniques of faunal complexes based on the analysis of samples characterising the micromammal fauna of a particular section. Research by V. O. Topachevsky is devoted to such fundamental branches of zoology as taxonomy, phylogenetics, historical faunistics, evolutionary morphology, and zoogeography. The scientist paid much attention to biostratigraphy and palaeogeography. He solved complex issues of taxonomy and parataxonomy in relation to extinct and modern representatives of fauna, justified the establishing of a number of new to science taxa of extinct mammals. Among the outstanding achievements of Vadym Topachevsky of great importance is the creation of a comprehensive association scheme of development of communities, which explains the changes in the fauna of small mammals of the late Pliocene, Eopleistocene and Pleistocene of the Northern Black Sea Region, as well as the development and justification of the biozonal stratigraphic scheme of the late Miocene and Pliocene of the Eastern Paratethys. He is the author of 8 monographs and supervisor of 11 candidate and 2 doctoral dissertations. Vadym Oleksandrovych formed a powerful scientific department and prepared a worthy scientific change, the works of which are well known to specialists. His achievements were awarded the Order of the Badge of Honor, the titles of Academician of the NAS of Ukraine, Honoured Worker of Science and Technology of Ukraine, and he won the I. I. Schmalhausen Prize of the NAS of Ukraine. The palaeontological exhibition of the National Museum of Natural History NAS of Ukraine was named after the scientist in 2005. The list of Vadym Topachevsky’s main scientific works is given as well.

From technological to social innovation – the changing role of principal investigators within entrepreneurial ecosystems

PurposeBy taking a micro-level perspective, this paper aims to examine the influence of the ongoing paradigm shift from technological to social innovation on principal investigators (PIs) and thereby links the two emerging research fields of entrepreneurial ecosystems and social innovation. The purpose of this paper is to build the basis for future empirical analyses.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is a conceptual paper and therefore focuses on theoretical considerations. Taking a quadruple helix approach, PIs are outlined as central actors of entrepreneurial ecosystems and transformative agents of the innovation process.FindingsPIs can proactively shape the innovation process and thus the shift from technological to social innovation, through various channels. They can affect all other actors of the quadruple helix, e.g. by exerting influence on the process of scientific change, on the public opinion and/or on the industry partners. Further, the paradigm shift might change the universities' role in the quadruple helix, substantiating their importance in the process of social change.Practical implicationsAs PIs are influencing all other actors of the quadruple helix, they are central actors of entrepreneurial ecosystems and thus crucial players in the innovation process. Hence, they need to be supported in fulfilling their role of transformative agents, accelerating and shaping the paradigm shift from technological to social innovation. Universities should therefore reconsider their missions and vision as well as their role within the society.Originality/valueThis paper considers the influence of an ongoing paradigm shift from technological to social innovation on entrepreneurial ecosystems. This work focuses especially on the PIs' role as transformative agents. Therefore, it builds a bridge from entrepreneurial ecosystems to social innovation and thus contributes to both research fields. Moreover, the paper shows the great potential of PIs to influence and shape social innovation.