Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science (Science and its Conceptual Foundations Series) (Science & Its Conceptual Foundations) [Paperback]

Although it is a good read, this is one of those books whose sum is less than its parts. Hull presents a very nice account of the various turns in the historical development of evolutionary theory. There is an especially good description of the different schools of taxonomy (how organisms are classified). We also get a blow-by-blow account of the struggle for ascendancy between the pheneticists and the cladists, with lots of juicy, insider detail about the personalities involved, including some well-known figures in evolutionary biology. This is all in the service of an argument in favor of a generalized selectionist account of conceptual change in science, which uses Hull's useful and clarifying terminology of replicators and interactors. (It was especially clarifying for Dawkins.) There is much wise and insightful commentary, and many interesting tidbits, about science and the philosophy of science sprinkled throughout the book.

But in terms of the book's overall argument, it doesn't seem we end up with all that much after 500 pages of text. I found myself a bit worn down and more than a bit frustrated by then. Yes, scientific change can be seen as a selection process with much in common with natural selection in biology. But the questions that conclusion suggests for future research (e.g., "Does science develop more quickly in areas characterized by competing factions than in areas where scientists work largely alone?") don't seem very exciting or novel, nor do they seem to require Hull's selectionist framework. I'm reminded of systems theory, where once you point out that interdependent things can often be viewed as elements of a system, nothing much of interest seems to follow. Similarly, memetics and viral theories of information spread involve an interesting insight, but where is the yield?

Hull spends a lot of time on the details of how articles end up published or rejected by journals, much less on the processes by which research grants are given out. His subjects worked in museums and other environments where outside financial support apparently was not critical; but that is hardly characteristic of most areas of science today, where whole labs float on soft money and the scramble for research dollars is intense. One has to wonder, too, about the extent to which his conclusions based on "small science" would hold for the kind of big-money science done in the pharmaceutical industry or where scientists themselves become entrepreneurs, such as we see today in genomics and the high-payoff areas of molecular biology generally. There is something slightly quaint about his taxonomists sniping at each other over control of their conference agendas.

For a much more succinct account of Hull's selectionist model, I'd recommend his later book, "Science and Selection: Essays on Biological Evolution and the Philosophy of Science" (2001).

A disappointing book. I enjoy philosophy of science, but this book is boring and needlessly pedantic.
I wouldnt recommend it.

The people thinks that the science is only for scientist. Nothing's far from that. In this book we can learn how the science involves people and their relationships, personal or not. Some parts of the book are funny, some are amazing. Did you already read "On the origin....", it does not matter, read the Hull's book!, and then any "about-evolution-book" you want, you'll read with other mind.