Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T04:08:33.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Actualism and Uniformitarianism: From Abstract Commitments to Forms of Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2023

Max Dresow
Max Dresow*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy & Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
*
Email: dreso004@umn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In “The Role of Historical Science in Methodological Actualism,” Meghan Page makes a number of important points about the sciences of geohistory. Yet the force of her arguments is blunted by her decision to explicate concepts like “actualism” and “uniformitarianism” as abstract methodological commitments. In this discussion note, I illustrate the difficulties that arise from this decision, and suggest a way of avoiding them that preserves Page’s main conclusions.

Type
Discussion Note
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 90 , Issue 4 , October 2023 , pp. 994 - 1000
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Dresow, Max. In Press. “Uniformitarianism Re-examined, or the Present is the Key to the Past, Except When It Isn’t (and Even Then It Kind of Is).” Perspectives on Science. https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frodeman, Robert. 2003. Geo-Logic: Breaking Ground Between Philosophy and the Earth Sciences. New York: SUNY Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1965. “Is Uniformitarianism Necessary?” American Journal of Science 263 (3): 223–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1987. Time’s Arrow, Time’s Cycle: Myth and Metaphor in the Discovery of Geological Time. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, Arthur. 1965. Principles of Physical Geology (Second Edition). London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi. 2013. “Why I Am a Presentist.” Science in Context 26 (4): 595–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Meghan D. 2021. “The Role of Historical Science in Methodological Actualism.” Philosophy of Science 88 (3): 461–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudwick, Martin J.S. 1985. The Great Devonian Controversy: The Shaping of Scientific Knowledge Among Gentlemanly Specialists. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudwick, Martin J.S. 2005. Bursting the Limits of Time: The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudwick, Martin J.S. 2014. Earth’s Deep History: How It Was Discovered and Why It Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar