Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T00:51:45.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Super Bowl and the Ox-Phos Controversy: “Winner-take-all” Competition in Philosophy of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Douglas Allchin
Douglas Allchin*
Affiliation:
Cornell University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Imagine two theories in a scientific controversy cast as competing teams in the Super Bowl, and you may get a “Scoreboard of experimental evidence” such as the following, published in a review article in 1970 (after Racker 1970, 135):

This figure compares two hypotheses in a debate in bioenergetics in the 1960s and 70s known as the Ox-Phos Controversy (Rowen 1986; Allchin 1990; Weber 1991). But its format, suggested by its title, bears a striking resemblance to the half-time recaps in televised football games: parallel assessments in several categories ask us to compare, say, how many yards rushed, number of first downs, passes completed, evidence for the role of the membrane, or evidence for ion transport, etc. (see also Sindermann 1982). Why did the review author—Efraim Racker, a research biochemist—borrow the scoreboard framework from sports to convey his assessment in science?

Type
Part I. Philosophy of Biology
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1994 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1994 , 1994 , pp. 22 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by 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

Ackerman, R.J. (1985), Data, Instruments and Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allchin, D. (1990), “Paradigms, Populations and Problem Fields: Approaches to Disagreement”, in PSA 1990, Volume 1, Fine, A., Forbes, M. and Wessels, L. (eds.). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp.53–66.Google Scholar
Allchin, D. (1992a), “How Do You Falsify a Question?: Crucial Tests versus Crucial Demonstrations”, in PSA 1992, Volume 2, Hull, D., Forbes, M. and Okruhlik, K. (eds.). 1: East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp.274-88.Google Scholar
Allchin, D. (1992b), “Phlogiston After Oxygen”, Ambix 39(3): 110-16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, A. (1986), The Neglect of Experiment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galison, P. (1986), How Experiments End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. (1965), Fact, Fiction and Forecast, 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. (1976), Languages of Art. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. (1978), Ways of Worldmaking. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Howson, C. and Urbach, P.. (1989), Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach. La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, P. (1993), Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn's Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1988), Science as a Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T.S. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T.S. (1992), “The Trouble with the Historical Philosophy of Science”, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, Dept. of the History of Science.Google Scholar
Kukla, A. (1992), “Ten Types of Scientific Progress”, in PSA 1990, Volume 1, Fine, A., Forbes, M. and Wessels, L. (eds.). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp.457-66.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1970), “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes”, in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.91–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1978), “Popper on Demarcation and Induction”, in Philosophical Papers, Volume 1, Worrall, J. and Currie, G. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.139-67.Google Scholar
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S.. (1979), Laboratory Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1977), Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley: Univeristy of California Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1990), Science and Relativism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, R., Laudan, L. and Donovan, A.. (1988), “Testing Theories of Scientific Change”, in Scrutinizing Science, Donovan, A., Laudan, L. and Laudan, R. (eds.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp.3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, I. (1990), “Measuring the Success of Science”, in PSA 1990, Volume 1, Fine, A., Forbes, M. and Wessels, L. (eds.). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp.435-46.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1975), “Rationality of Scientific Revolutions”, in Problems of Scientific Revolutions, Harre, R. (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.72–101.Google Scholar
Racker, E. (1970), “Function and Structure of the Inner Membrane of Mitochondria and Chloroplasts”, in Membranes of Mitochondria and Chloroplasts, Racker, E. (ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. pp.127-71.Google Scholar
Racker, E. and Horstman, L.L. (1972), “Mechanism and Control of Oxidative Phosphorylation', in Energy Metabolism and the Regulation of Metabolic Processes in Mitochondria, Mehlman, Myron A. and Hanson, Richard W. (eds.). New York: Academic Press, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Rowen, L. (1986), Normative Epistemology and Scientific Research: Reflections on the “Ox-Phos’ Controversy, A Case History in Biochemistry. Ph.D. dissertation, Nashville: Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. (1984), “Scientific Theories and Their Domains”, in Reason and the Search for Knowledge. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 273–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sindermann, C. (1982), Winning the Games Scientists Play. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, E.C. (1971), “The Coupling Between Energy-Yielding and Energy-Utilizing Reactions in Mitochondria”, Quarterly Review of Biophysics 4: 35–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, B. (1991), “Glynn and the Conceptual Development of the Chemiosmotic Theory: A Retrospective and Prospective View”, Bioscience Reports 11 (6).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed