Note to users. If you're seeing this message, it means that your browser cannot find this page's style/presentation instructions -- or possibly that you are using a browser that does not support current Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing, and what you can do to make your experience of our site the best it can be.

Science 17 November 1978:
Vol. 202. no. 4369, pp. 717 - 723
DOI: 10.1126/science.202.4369.717
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Articles

Planck's Principle

David L. Hull 1, Peter D. Tessner 2, and Arthur M. Diamond 3

1 Professor of philosophy at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee 53201
2 Graduate student in the Committee on the Conceptual Foundations of Science, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637
3 Graduate student in the Department of Philosophy, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637

Two views about the Darwinian revolution are tested: that nearly all scientists in Great Britain had been converted to a belief in the evolution of species within 10 years after the publication of the Origin of Species, and that younger scientists were converted much more rapidly than older scientists. Both views are shown to be less than accurate.


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES:
Rethinking Scientific Specialization.
K. B. Wray (2005)
Social Studies of Science 35, 151-164
   Abstract »    PDF »
Gender, Lifecourse and Publication Decisions in Toxic-Exposure Epidemiology:: `Now!' Versus `Wait a Minute!'.
D. A. Rier (2003)
Social Studies of Science 33, 269-300
   Abstract »    PDF »
Is Science Really a Young Man's Game?.
K. B. Wray (2003)
Social Studies of Science 33, 137-149
   Abstract »    PDF »
Dynamics of Theory Change in the Social Sciences: Relative Deprivation and Collective Violence.
S. G. Brush (1996)
Journal of Conflict Resolution 40, 523-545
   Abstract »


To Advertise     Find Products

Science. ISSN 0036-8075 (print), 1095-9203 (online)