Darwinian selection theory with the new science of genetics whereas Weismann championed so-called hard heredity (see, however, Winther 2001) and natural selection. However, in the first decades of the twentieth century, they were, evidently, not seen as a kind of missing link between and the later MS. It seems more accurate or appropriate to us to squarely On the Origin include both interpretations or approaches of evolution among the various pre-paradigmatic evolutionary schools. The pre-paradigmatic phase in the historical development of a science comes to an end when one pre-paradigmatic theory or approach manages to convince a majority of scientists because of its ability to solve important problems and because of the perspective it offers on all sorts of new problems for this group to resolve. This paradigm can be one of the pre-paradigmatic or a combination of various pre-paradigmatic theories. This corresponds with what (1989, p. 61) called the one pre-paradigmatic approach of “evolutionary constriction”: evolution, that of population genetics, came out victorious in the pre-paradigmatic struggle and non-Darwinian alternatives lost all credibility among a majority of biologists. However, in this respect, the history of evolutionary biology does not completely conform to model Kuhn’s the MS was, as we will explain in more detail below, evidently not only the result of a or only the product of a victory of one pre-paradigmatic theory or approach: genetics was only the of the MS 2017, p. 2). For now it “formalized core theory” (Müller suffices to say that, as Smocovitis (1996, p. 171) puts it, it was not but On the Origin Darwin’s the that would as the biological analogue of the “modern synthesis” “function ‘Newtonian in the grand narrative of the history of (see also Delisle 2011). It was science” as a breath of fresh air since was soon appreciated that a basis had now been laid on “it which future evolutionary studies could be p. 218). safely built” (Young 1993, Inspired and guided by their paradigm, and freed from the endless pre-paradigmatic quarrels, scientists subsequently make swift progress. Their work becomes more esoteric and technical
Darwinian selection theory with the new science of genetics whereas Weismann championed so-called hard heredity (see, however, Winther 2001) and natural selection. However, in the first decades of the twentieth century, they were, evidently, not seen as a kind of missing link between On the Origin and the later MS. It seems more accurate or appropriate to us to squarely include both interpretations or approaches of evolution among the various pre-paradigmatic evolutionary schools. The pre-paradigmatic phase in the historical development of a science comes to an end when one pre-paradigmatic theory or approach manages to convince a majority of scientists because of its ability to solve important problems and because of the perspective it offers on all sorts of new problems for this group to resolve. This paradigm can be one of the pre-paradigmatic or a combination of various pre-paradigmatic theories. This corresponds with what (1989, p. 61) called the “evolutionary constriction”: one pre-paradigmatic approach of evolution, that of population genetics, came out victorious in the pre-paradigmatic struggle and non-Darwinian alternatives lost all credibility among a majority of biologists. However, in this respect, the history of evolutionary biology does not completely conform to Kuhn’s model the MS was, as we will explain in more detail below, evidently not only the result of a or only the product of a victory of one pre-paradigmatic theory or approach: genetics was only the “formalized core of the MS theory” (Müller 2017, p. 2). For now it suffices to say that, as Smocovitis (1996, p. 171) puts it, it was not Darwin’s On the Origin but the “modern synthesis” that would “function as the biological analogue of the ‘Newtonian in the grand narrative of the history of science” (see also Delisle 2011). It was as a breath of fresh air since “it was soon appreciated that a basis had now been laid on which future evolutionary studies could be safely built” (Young 1993, p. 218). Inspired and guided by their paradigm, and freed from the endless pre-paradigmatic quarrels, scientists subsequently make swift progress. Their work becomes more esoteric and technical