Sterner Beckett, Lidgard Scott
Center for Biology and Society, Arizona State University, PO Box 873301, Tempe, AZ, 85287-3301, USA.
Integrative Research Center, Field Museum, 1400 S Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL, 60605, USA.
J Hist Biol. 2018 Mar;51(1):31-67. doi: 10.1007/s10739-017-9471-1.
It is time to escape the constraints of the Systematics Wars narrative and pursue new questions that are better positioned to establish the relevance of the field in this time period to broader issues in the history of biology and history of science. To date, the underlying assumptions of the Systematics Wars narrative have led historians to prioritize theory over practice and the conflicts of a few leading theorists over the less-polarized interactions of systematists at large. We show how shifting to a practice-oriented view of methodology, centered on the trajectory of mathematization in systematics, demonstrates problems with the common view that one camp (cladistics) straightforwardly "won" over the other (phenetics). In particular, we critique David Hull's historical account in Science as a Process by demonstrating exactly the sort of intermediate level of positive sharing between phenetic and cladistic theories that undermines their mutually exclusive individuality as conceptual systems over time. It is misleading, or at least inadequate, to treat them simply as holistically opposed theories that can only interact by competition to the death. Looking to the future, we suggest that the concept of workflow provides an important new perspective on the history of mathematization and computerization in biology after World War II.
是时候摆脱“系统学战争”叙事的束缚，去探索一些新问题了，这些问题更有助于确立该领域在这一时期与生物学史和科学史中更广泛问题的相关性。迄今为止，“系统学战争”叙事的潜在假设使历史学家将理论置于实践之上，将少数主要理论家的冲突置于广大系统学家较少两极分化的互动之上。我们展示了转向以系统学中数学化轨迹为中心的面向实践的方法论观点，如何揭示了一种普遍观点的问题，即一个阵营（分支系统学）直接“战胜”了另一个阵营（表型分类学）。特别是，我们通过展示表型分类学和分支系统学理论之间那种随着时间推移会破坏它们作为概念系统相互排斥的独特性的积极共享的中间水平，来批判大卫·赫尔在《作为一个过程的科学》中的历史叙述。将它们简单地视为只能通过你死我活的竞争进行互动的完全对立的理论是具有误导性的，或者至少是不充分的。展望未来，我们认为工作流程的概念为二战后生物学中数学化和计算机化的历史提供了一个重要的新视角。
