Golden spikes, scientific types, and the ma(r)king of deep time

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Standard

Golden spikes, scientific types, and the ma(r)king of deep time. / Witteveen, Joeri.

I: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Bind 106, 2024, s. 70.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Harvard

Witteveen, J 2024, 'Golden spikes, scientific types, and the ma(r)king of deep time', Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, bind 106, s. 70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.02.004

APA

Witteveen, J. (2024). Golden spikes, scientific types, and the ma(r)king of deep time. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 106, 70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.02.004

Vancouver

Witteveen J. Golden spikes, scientific types, and the ma(r)king of deep time. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. 2024;106:70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.02.004

Author

Witteveen, Joeri. / Golden spikes, scientific types, and the ma(r)king of deep time. I: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. 2024 ; Bind 106. s. 70.

Bibtex

@article{fcf145781edb40e694f0ede5c8c07a37,
title = "Golden spikes, scientific types, and the ma(r)king of deep time",
abstract = "Chronostratigraphy is the subfield of geology that studies the relative age of rock strata and that aims at producing a hierarchical classification of (global) divisions of the historical time-rock record. The {\textquoteleft}golden spike{\textquoteright} or {\textquoteleft}GSSP{\textquoteright} approach is the cornerstone of contemporary chronostratigraphic methodology. It is also perplexing. Chronostratigraphers define each global time-rock boundary extremely locally, often by driving a gold-colored pin into an exposed rock section at a particular level. Moreover, they usually avoid rock sections that show any meaningful sign of paleontological disruption or geological discontinuity: the less obvious the boundary, the better. It has been argued that we can make sense of this practice of marking boundaries by comparing the status and function of golden spikes to that of other concrete, particular reference standards from other sciences: holotypes from biological taxonomy and measurement prototypes from the metrology of weight and measures. Alisa Bokulich (2020b) has argued that these {\textquoteleft}scientific types{\textquoteright} are in an important sense one of a kind: they have a common status and function. I will argue that this picture of high-level conceptual unity is mistaken and fails to consider the diversity of aims and purposes of standardization and classification across the sciences. I develop an alternative, disunified account of scientific types that shows how differences in ontological attitudes and epistemic aims inform scientists{\textquoteright} choices between different kinds of scientific types. This perspective on scientific types helps to make sense of an intriguing mid-twentieth-century debate among chronostratigraphers about the very nature of their enterprise. Should chronostratigraphers conventionally *make* boundaries by designating golden spikes, or should they attempt to *mark* pre-existing {\textquoteleft}natural{\textquoteright} boundaries with the help of a different kind of scientific type?",
author = "Joeri Witteveen",
year = "2024",
doi = "10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.02.004",
language = "English",
volume = "106",
pages = "70",
journal = "Studies in History and Philosophy of Science",
issn = "1879-2510",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Golden spikes, scientific types, and the ma(r)king of deep time

AU - Witteveen, Joeri

PY - 2024

Y1 - 2024

N2 - Chronostratigraphy is the subfield of geology that studies the relative age of rock strata and that aims at producing a hierarchical classification of (global) divisions of the historical time-rock record. The ‘golden spike’ or ‘GSSP’ approach is the cornerstone of contemporary chronostratigraphic methodology. It is also perplexing. Chronostratigraphers define each global time-rock boundary extremely locally, often by driving a gold-colored pin into an exposed rock section at a particular level. Moreover, they usually avoid rock sections that show any meaningful sign of paleontological disruption or geological discontinuity: the less obvious the boundary, the better. It has been argued that we can make sense of this practice of marking boundaries by comparing the status and function of golden spikes to that of other concrete, particular reference standards from other sciences: holotypes from biological taxonomy and measurement prototypes from the metrology of weight and measures. Alisa Bokulich (2020b) has argued that these ‘scientific types’ are in an important sense one of a kind: they have a common status and function. I will argue that this picture of high-level conceptual unity is mistaken and fails to consider the diversity of aims and purposes of standardization and classification across the sciences. I develop an alternative, disunified account of scientific types that shows how differences in ontological attitudes and epistemic aims inform scientists’ choices between different kinds of scientific types. This perspective on scientific types helps to make sense of an intriguing mid-twentieth-century debate among chronostratigraphers about the very nature of their enterprise. Should chronostratigraphers conventionally *make* boundaries by designating golden spikes, or should they attempt to *mark* pre-existing ‘natural’ boundaries with the help of a different kind of scientific type?

AB - Chronostratigraphy is the subfield of geology that studies the relative age of rock strata and that aims at producing a hierarchical classification of (global) divisions of the historical time-rock record. The ‘golden spike’ or ‘GSSP’ approach is the cornerstone of contemporary chronostratigraphic methodology. It is also perplexing. Chronostratigraphers define each global time-rock boundary extremely locally, often by driving a gold-colored pin into an exposed rock section at a particular level. Moreover, they usually avoid rock sections that show any meaningful sign of paleontological disruption or geological discontinuity: the less obvious the boundary, the better. It has been argued that we can make sense of this practice of marking boundaries by comparing the status and function of golden spikes to that of other concrete, particular reference standards from other sciences: holotypes from biological taxonomy and measurement prototypes from the metrology of weight and measures. Alisa Bokulich (2020b) has argued that these ‘scientific types’ are in an important sense one of a kind: they have a common status and function. I will argue that this picture of high-level conceptual unity is mistaken and fails to consider the diversity of aims and purposes of standardization and classification across the sciences. I develop an alternative, disunified account of scientific types that shows how differences in ontological attitudes and epistemic aims inform scientists’ choices between different kinds of scientific types. This perspective on scientific types helps to make sense of an intriguing mid-twentieth-century debate among chronostratigraphers about the very nature of their enterprise. Should chronostratigraphers conventionally *make* boundaries by designating golden spikes, or should they attempt to *mark* pre-existing ‘natural’ boundaries with the help of a different kind of scientific type?

U2 - 10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.02.004

DO - 10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.02.004

M3 - Journal article

VL - 106

SP - 70

JO - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

JF - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

SN - 1879-2510

ER -

ID: 395384569