Practice-oriented controversies and borrowed epistemic credibility in current evolutionary biology: phylogeography as a case study

Although there is increasing recognition that theory and practice in science are intimately intertwined, philosophy of science perspectives on scientific controversies have been historically focused on theory rather than practice. As a step in the construction of frameworks for understanding controversies linked to scientific practices, here we introduce the notion of borrowed epistemic credibility (BEC), to describe the situation in which scientists, in order to garner support for their own stances, exploit similarities between tenets in their own field and accepted statements or positions properly developed within other areas of expertise. We illustrate the scope of application of our proposal with the analysis of a heavily methods-grounded, recent controversy in phylogeography, a biological subdiscipline concerned with the study of the historical causes of biogeographical variation through population genetics- and phylogenetics-based computer analyses of diversity in DNA sequences, both within species and between closely related taxa. Toward this end, we briefly summarize the arguments proposed by selected authors representing each side of the controversy: the ‘nested clade analysis’ school versus the ‘statistical phylogeography’ orientation. We claim that whereas both phylogeographic ‘research styles’ borrow epistemic credibility from sources such as formal logic, the familiarity of results from other scientific areas, the authority of prominent scientists, or the presumed superiority of quantitative vs. verbal reasoning, ‘theory’ plays essentially no role as a foundation of the controversy. Besides underscoring the importance of strictly methodological and other non-theoretical aspects of controversies in current evolutionary biology, our analysis suggests a perspective with potential usefulness for the re-examination of more general philosophy of biology issues, such as the nature of historical inference, rationality, justification, and objectivity

Allometric Trajectories and \u201cStress\u201d: A Quantitative Approach

The term \u201cstress\u201d is an important but vague term in plant biology. We show situations in which thinking in terms of \u201cstress\u201d is profitably replaced by quantifying distance from functionally optimal scaling relationships between plant parts. These relationships include, for example, the often-cited one between leaf area and sapwood area, which presumably reflects mutual dependence between source and sink tissues and which scales positively within individuals and across species. These relationships seem to be so basic to plant functioning that they are favored by selection across nearly all plant lineages. Within a species or population, individuals that are far from the common scaling patterns are thus expected to perform negatively. For instance, \u201ctoo little\u201d leaf area (e.g. due to herbivory or disease) per unit of active stem mass would be expected to incur to low carbon income per respiratory cost and thus lead to lower growth. We present a framework that allows quantitative study of phenomena traditionally assigned to \u201cstress,\u201d without need for recourse to this term. Our approach contrasts with traditional approaches for studying \u201cstress,\u201d e.g. revealing that small \u201cstressed\u201d plants likely are in fact well suited to local conditions. We thus offer a quantitative perspective to the study of phenomena often referred to under such terms as \u201cstress,\u201d plasticity, adaptation, and acclimation

How to study adaptation (and why to do it that way)

Some adaptationist explanations are regarded as maximally solid and others fanciful just-so stories. Just-so stories are explanations based on very little evidence. Lack of evidence leads to circular-sounding reasoning: “this trait was shaped by selection in unseen ancestral populations and this selection must have occurred because the trait is present.” Well-supported adaptationist explanations include evidence that is not only abundant but selected from comparative, populational, and optimality perspectives, the three adaptationist subdisciplines. Each subdiscipline obtains its broad relevance in evolutionary biology via assumptions that can only be tested with the methods of the other subdisciplines. However, even in the best-supported explanations, assumptions regarding variation, heritability, and fitness in unseen ancestral populations are always present. These assumptions are accepted given how well they would explain the data if they were true. This means that some degree of “circularity” is present in all evolutionary explanations. Evolutionary explanation corresponds not to a deductive structure, as biologists usually assert, but instead to ones such as abduction or induction. With these structures in mind, we show the way to a healthier view of “circularity” in evolutionary biology, and why integration across the comparative, populational, and optimality approaches is necessary

“Practice-Oriented Controversies and Borrowed Epistemic Credibility in Current Evolutionary Biology: Phylogeography as a Case Study

Methodological controversies are an important but often neglected issue in the philosophy of science. Because experimental results often cannot settle controversies, other elements must be incorporated to debates. We introduce the notion of borrowed epistemic credibility to better understand the role that non-empirical elements play in such controversies, illustrating our proposal with a recent controversy in phylogeography. Our analysis shows how scientific controversies that spring from disagreements about methodological issues potentially involve deeper debates regarding what constitutes ‘good science’ in general, and suggests the reexamination of more general issues, such as the nature of inference, rationality, or objectivity

Practice-oriented controversies and borrowed epistemic credibility in current evolutionary biology: phylogeography as a case study

Although there is increasing recognition that theory and practice in science are intimately intertwined, philosophy of science perspectives on scientific controversies have been historically focused on theory rather than practice. As a step in the construction of frameworks for understanding controversies linked to scientific practices, here we introduce the notion of borrowed epistemic credibility (BEC), to describe the situation in which scientists, in order to garner support for their own stances, exploit similarities between tenets in their own field and accepted statements or positions properly developed within other areas of expertise. We illustrate the scope of application of our proposal with the analysis of a heavily methods-grounded, recent controversy in phylogeography, a biological subdiscipline concerned with the study of the historical causes of biogeographical variation through population genetics- and phylogenetics-based computer analyses of diversity in DNA sequences, both within species and between closely related taxa. Toward this end, we briefly summarize the arguments proposed by selected authors representing each side of the controversy: the ‘nested clade analysis’ school versus the ‘statistical phylogeography’ orientation. We claim that whereas both phylogeographic ‘research styles’ borrow epistemic credibility from sources such as formal logic, the familiarity of results from other scientific areas, the authority of prominent scientists, or the presumed superiority of quantitative vs. verbal reasoning, ‘theory’ plays essentially no role as a foundation of the controversy. Besides underscoring the importance of strictly methodological and other non-theoretical aspects of controversies in current evolutionary biology, our analysis suggests a perspective with potential usefulness for the re-examination of more general philosophy of biology issues, such as the nature of historical inference, rationality, justification, and objectivity

“Practice-Oriented Controversies and Borrowed Epistemic Credibility in Current Evolutionary Biology: Phylogeography as a Case Study

Methodological controversies are an important but often neglected issue in the philosophy of science. Because experimental results often cannot settle controversies, other elements must be incorporated to debates. We introduce the notion of borrowed epistemic credibility to better understand the role that non-empirical elements play in such controversies, illustrating our proposal with a recent controversy in phylogeography. Our analysis shows how scientific controversies that spring from disagreements about methodological issues potentially involve deeper debates regarding what constitutes ‘good science’ in general, and suggests the reexamination of more general issues, such as the nature of inference, rationality, or objectivity

Magnetically-controlled velocity selection in a cold atom sample using stimulated Raman transitions

We observe velocity-selective two-photon resonances in a cold atom cloud in the presence of a magnetic field. We use these resonances to demonstrate a simple magnetometer with sub-mG resolution. The technique is particularly useful for zeroing the magnetic field and does not require any additional laser frequencies than are already used for standard magneto-optical traps. We verify the effects using Faraday rotation spectroscopy.Comment: 5 pages, 6 figure

Wired! and Visualizing Venice: Scaling up Digital Art History

This article focuses on Visualizing Venice, an interdisciplinary, cross-cultural collaboration that engages in mapping, 3-D modeling, and multimedia representations of historical change in Venice, Italy. Through a “laboratory” approach that integrates students and faculty in multi-year research teams, we ask new questions and pursue emerging lines of inquiry about architectural monuments, their relation to the larger urban setting, and the role of sculptural and painted decoration in sacred spaces. Our practice of digital art history transforms both teaching and research and provides new means for communicating knowledge to a broad public

Gender Bias: An Analysis of the Distribution of Institutional Aid

This study is based on the premise that equity in the distribution of institutional student aid is related to a student\u27s academic ability and need. Thus, to establish evidence of gender bias, this study examined the influence of gender on students\u27 institutional aid awards while controlling for these two factors, as well as other related student and institutional characteristics. This study found no direct evidence of gender bias when examining the relationship between student characteristics and institutional aid. However, when examining institutional characteristics, indirect implications suggested that gender was related to the relationship between academic ability as measured by SAT/ ACT and institutional aid