A consensual pattern in the form of a circular map today emerges from connections between the major (high level) disciplines of science. Classifying sciences is useful in practice, but the resulting pattern in itself is rarely questioned. Here, I suggest that this pattern may, at least partly, be explained by the degree (intensity) of contingency of the objects they study. The contingency property appears to have two distinct yet interlinked origins: the major contingent events that have chronologically built our universe and the minor contingent events building every new object or phenomenon. This study provides a simple mathematical model to formalize causes generating the pattern of the global map of science. I propose to use the μ parameter of a branching process to more objectively quantify the degree of contingency of each science. Although biased by occidental culture and other confounding factors, the global pattern of sciences certainly provides crucial information on the deep nature of science.
Balian, R. (1991). From Microphysics to Macrophysics: Methods and Applications of Statistical Physics. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45475-5
Barberousse, A., Kistler, M., & Ludwig, P. (2000). La philosophie des sciences au XXème siècle: Paris: Flammarion.
Beatty, J. (1993). The Evolutionary Contingency Thesis. In G. Wolters, & J. G. Lennox (Eds.), Concepts, Theories, and Rationality in the Biological Sciences (pp. 45-81). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.
Bennett, C. H. (1988). Logical Depth and Physical Complexity. In R. Herken (Ed.), The Universal Turing Machine: A Half-Century Survey (pp. 227-257). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bersini, H., & Reisse, J. (2007). Comment définir la vie? Les réponses de la biologie, de l’intelligence artificielle et de la philosophie des sciences. Paris: Vuibert.
Börner, K., Klavans, R., Patek, M., Zoss, A., Biberstine, J., Light, R., Larivière, V., & Boyack, K. (2012). Design and Update of a Classification System: The UCSD Map of Science. PLoS ONE, 7, e39464. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039464
Brillouin, L. (1956). Science and Information Theory. New York: Academic Press.
Carnap, R. (1974). An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Mineola, NY: Dover Science Book.
Carnot, S. (1824). Réflexions sur la puissance motrice du feu et sur les machines propres à développer cette puissance. Paris: Bachelier.
Cassou-Noguès, P. (2007). Les démons de Gödel. Logique et folie. Paris: Seuil. https://doi.org/10.14375/NP.9782251760407
Christenson, J. H., Cronin, J. W., Fitch, V. L., & Turlay, R. (1964). Evidence for the 2π Decay of the K20 Meson. Physical Review Letters, 13, 138. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.138
Comte, A. (1865). A General View of Positivism. London: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511692888
Condorcet, N. D. (1794-1795). Esquisse d’un tableau historique des progrès de l’esprit humain. Paris, Posthume.
D’Huy, J. (2013). A Phylogenetic Approach of Mythology and Its Archaeological Consequences. Rock Art Research, 30, 115-118.
Davidson, D. (1970). Mentals Events. In D. Davidson (Ed.), Essays on Actions and Events. New York: Oxford University Press.
De Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2011). Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek (Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511996368
Dean, L. G., Kendal, R. L., Schapiro, S. J., Thierry, B., & Laland, K. N. (2012). Identification of the Social and Cognitive Processes Underlying Human Cumulative Culture. Science, 335, 1114-1118. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1213969
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1991). Qu’est-ce que la philosophie? Lonrai: Les éditions de Minuit.
Diamond, J. (1997). Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001
Fontana, W., & Buss, L. W. (1994). What Would Be Conserved If “The Tape Were Played Twice”? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 91, 757-761. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.91.2.757
Gaucherel, C. (2012). Le quotidien du chercheur, une chasse aux fantômes? Montpellier: Eds Quae. https://doi.org/10.3917/quae.gauc.2013.01
Gaucherel, C. (2013). A Deep Unity between Scientific Disciplines. Open Journal of Philosophy, 3, 413-421. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojpp.2013.33061
Gaucherel, C. (2014). Ecosystem Complexity through the Lens of Logical Depth: Capturing Ecosystem Individuality. Biological Theory, 9, 440-451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-014-0162-2
Gaucherel, C., & Jensen, H. J. (2012). Origins of Evolution: Non Acquired Characters Dominates over Acquired Characters in Changing Environment. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 304, 11-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2012.02.028
Gaucherel, C., Boudon, F., Houet, T., Castets, M., & Godin, C. (2012). Understanding Patchy Landscape Dynamics: Towards a Landscape Language. PLoS ONE, 7, e46064. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046064
Gaucherel, C., Théro, H., Puiseux, A., & Bonhomme, V. (2017). Understand Ecosystem Regime Shifts by Modelling Ecosystem Development Using Boolean Networks. Ecological Complexity, 31, 104-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2017.06.001
Gell-Mann, M. (1994). The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. Manhattan, NY: St. Martin’s Griffin. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2808634
Gould, S. J. (1989). Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Grimmett, G. R., & Stirzaker, D. R. (1992). Probability and Random Processes. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Gruber, T. R. (1993). A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5, 199-220. https://doi.org/10.1006/knac.1993.1008
Haufe, C. (2015). Gould’s Laws. Philosophy of Science, 82, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1086/678979
Huneman, P. (2010). Topological Explanations and Robustness in Biological Sciences. Synthese, 177, 213-245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-010-9842-z
Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (2005). Evolution in Four Dimensions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. (2009). Toward a Consensus Map of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 455-476. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20991
Klein, E., & Spiro, M. (1996). Le temps et sa flèche. Paris: Flammarion.
Maynard Smith, J., & Szathmáry, E. (1995). The Major Transitions in Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mayr, E. (2004). What Makes Biology Unique? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617188
Mitchell, S. D. (2000). Dimensions of Scientific Law. Philosophy of Science, 67, 242-265. https://doi.org/10.1086/392774
Morris, S. C. (2010). Evolution: Like Any Other Science It Is Predictable. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365, 133-145. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0154
Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of Science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Nelson, E. (2001). Warning Signs of a Possible Collapse of Contemporary Mathematics. In M. Heller & W. H. Woodin (Eds.), Infinity: New Research Frontiers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Oudiette, D., Dealberto, M. J., Uguccioni, G., Golmard, J. L., Merino-Andreu, M., Tafti, M., Garma, L., Schwartz, S., & Arnulf, I. (2012). Dreaming without REM Sleep. Conscious and Cognition, 21, 1129-1140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.04.010
Panza, M., & Sereni, A. (2013). Plato’s Problem: An Introduction to Mathematical Platonism. Hampshire, London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137298133
Pearce, T. (2012). Convergence and Parallelism in Evolution: A Neo-Gouldian Account. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 63, 429-448. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axr046
Pesic, P. (2002). Seeing Double: Shared Identities in Physics, Philosophy, and Literature. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6138.001.0001
Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations. Physics Today, 16, 80. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3050617
Putnam, H. (1975). Mathematics, Matter, and Method: Philosophical Papers (Vol. 1). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Saitta, A. M., & Saija, F. (2014). Miller Experiments in Atomistic Computer Simulations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 13768-13773. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1402894111
Saunders, S., & Wallace, D. (2008). Branching and Uncertainty. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59, 293-305. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axn029
Sowa, J. F. (1995). Top-Level Ontological Categories. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 43, 669-685. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1995.1068
Stengers, I. (1995). L’invention des sciences modernes. Paris: Flammarion.
Sterelny, K. (2015). Contingency and History. Philosophy of Science, 83, 521-539. https://doi.org/10.1086/687260
Tonelli, G. (1967). Kant and the Ancient Skeptics. Studien zu Kants philosophischer Entwicklung, hrsg.v. H. Heimsoeth, Hildesheim: Olms.
Van Fraassen, B. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198244274.001.0001
Vermeij, G. J. (2006). Historical Contingency and the Purported Uniqueness of Evolutionary Innovations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 1804-1809. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0508724103