Narratives of contingency as historical evidence for philosophical arguments of contingency: pathway decisions in the early development of molecular genetics.

IF 1 3区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Wessel de Cock
{"title":"Narratives of contingency as historical evidence for philosophical arguments of contingency: pathway decisions in the early development of molecular genetics.","authors":"Wessel de Cock","doi":"10.1007/s40656-026-00738-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article argues that philosophical arguments of contingency in the development of science can be advanced by starting from historical evidence produced through the framework of narratives of contingency. Narratives of contingency are conceptualized both as prospective narratives constructed by historical actors to navigate decisions at what they perceived as fork moments in the present and as an analytical framework for systematically reconstructing such decision-making processes from historical sources.The argument is developed in three steps. First, the article outlines three constraints that historical case studies must explicitly address in order to function as evidence for philosophical arguments of contingency and alternative pathway possibility. These are the identification of a juncture moment in a situated trajectory, an explanatory factor linking actors' decisions to the initiation of path-dependent sequences, and an explicit specification of analytical level and scale. Second, narratives of contingency are introduced as a historical framework that enables the systematic description and explanation of pathway decision-making processes, particularly in contexts of institutional deliberation where alternative courses of action were explicitly articulated. Third, the framework is illustrated through a case study of institutional decision-making in the early development of molecular genetics in Germany (1958-1960).</p>","PeriodicalId":56308,"journal":{"name":"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences","volume":"48 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13253592/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-026-00738-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article argues that philosophical arguments of contingency in the development of science can be advanced by starting from historical evidence produced through the framework of narratives of contingency. Narratives of contingency are conceptualized both as prospective narratives constructed by historical actors to navigate decisions at what they perceived as fork moments in the present and as an analytical framework for systematically reconstructing such decision-making processes from historical sources.The argument is developed in three steps. First, the article outlines three constraints that historical case studies must explicitly address in order to function as evidence for philosophical arguments of contingency and alternative pathway possibility. These are the identification of a juncture moment in a situated trajectory, an explanatory factor linking actors' decisions to the initiation of path-dependent sequences, and an explicit specification of analytical level and scale. Second, narratives of contingency are introduced as a historical framework that enables the systematic description and explanation of pathway decision-making processes, particularly in contexts of institutional deliberation where alternative courses of action were explicitly articulated. Third, the framework is illustrated through a case study of institutional decision-making in the early development of molecular genetics in Germany (1958-1960).

作为偶然性哲学论证的历史证据的偶然性叙述:分子遗传学早期发展中的路径决定。
本文认为,科学发展中偶然性的哲学论证可以从偶然性叙事框架中产生的历史证据出发。偶然性叙事被概念化为历史参与者构建的前瞻性叙事,以引导他们在当前的分叉时刻做出决策,同时也是一种分析框架,用于系统地从历史来源重建这些决策过程。这个论证分三步展开。首先,本文概述了历史案例研究必须明确解决的三个约束条件,以便作为偶然性和替代途径可能性的哲学论证的证据。这些是对所处轨迹中的一个关键时刻的识别,将行为者的决定与路径依赖序列的启动联系起来的解释因素,以及对分析水平和规模的明确规范。其次,偶然性叙事作为一种历史框架被引入,能够系统地描述和解释路径决策过程,特别是在明确阐述替代行动方案的制度审议背景下。第三,通过对德国分子遗传学早期发展(1958-1960)的制度决策的案例研究来说明该框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 综合性期刊-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences is an interdisciplinary journal committed to providing an integrative approach to understanding the life sciences. It welcomes submissions from historians, philosophers, biologists, physicians, ethicists and scholars in the social studies of science. Contributors are expected to offer broad and interdisciplinary perspectives on the development of biology, biomedicine and related fields, especially as these perspectives illuminate the foundations, development, and/or implications of scientific practices and related developments. Submissions which are collaborative and feature different disciplinary approaches are especially encouraged, as are submissions written by senior and junior scholars (including graduate students).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书