A recent anthology by philosophers of science challenging the "modern synthesis" in evolution draws an intelligent review from NDPR, here: https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/challenging-the-modern-synthesis-adaptation-development-and-inheritanc/ What had to be brought together was some sort of Darwinian account of evolution on the one hand and Me ndelian genetics on the other. The late 1930s and early 1940s were key, and the gelling of the synthesis involved a seminal book by Theodosius Dobzhansky in 1937, and another by Ernst Mayr in 1942 The term "modern synthesis" was attached to such work in the subtitle of a book by Julian Huxley, also in 1942. I'll quote the review directly for some institutional history: During this period significant institution building was taking place, coupled with theoretically significant gate-keeping. The Committee on Common Problems of Genetics, Paleontology, and Systematics, supported by a United States National Res...
Posts
To continue with the thoughts I was discussing last week under this heading: Under the view I'm discussing, a variety of prescriptive legal theories have "worked themselves impure" in the words of Kessler and Pozen. These theories have begun as a purist account of how the law ought to work given one central idea. But they then have encountered difficult facts, contending interpretations, etc. and have gradually incorporated impurities, until it becomes clear that they weren't the revolution or New Paradigm they were first sold as. An example, cost-benefit analysis. In the incarnation that concerns the authors of this life-cycle view, CBA got a bold start in the early 1980s, but encountered difficulties before the end of that decade, in part because of an atmosphere of scandal that came to surround some of the administrative offices that had to take the point on this march. Also, on the academic front, CBA came under criticism for being a mere pretext for a po...