The practice of science entails more than just repeated cycles of theory construction, hypothesis generation, and empirical investigation. Broader, metatheoretical levels of conceptualization necessarily condition all aspects of the research process, establishing the very meaning and sensibility of science’s empirical and theoretical activities. When debate arises at these metatheoretical levels, it is the subject of conceptual analysis, not empirical investigation. In this article, we examine the overarching metatheoretical divide that lies at the heart of many key theoretical debates in science: the divide between a Cartesian-Split-Mechanistic research paradigm and a Process-Relational research paradigm. We instantiate this divide in terms of three prominent domains of inquiry within developmental science: the study of epigenesis (including epigenetics); the study of embodiment, specifically embodied cognition; and the study of baselines for human nature and development. We reveal how core issues and theoretical debates within these domains derive from metatheoretical, not theoretical, points of contention.

Keywords:
Conceptual analysis, Metatheory, Embodiment, Epigenesis, Baselines
1.
Aizawa, K. (2007). Understanding the embodiment of perception. Journal of Philosophy, 104, 5–25.
2.
Bennett, M.R., & Hacker, P.M.S. (2003). Philosophical foundations of neuroscience. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
3.
Bernstein, R.J. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, hermeneutics, and praxis. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
4.
Block, N. (2005). Review of Alva Noë. Journal of Philosophy, 102, 259–272.
5.
Brooks, R.A. (1991). New approaches to robotics. Science, 253, 1227–1232.
6.
Cajete, G. (2000). Native science: Natural laws of interdependence. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light.
7.
Carey, S., & Markman, E.M. (1999). Cognitive development. In B.M. Bly & D.E. Rumelhart (Eds.), Cognitive science (pp. 201–254). New York, NY: Academic Press.
8.
Christen, M., Narvaez, D., & Gutzwiller, E. (2017). Comparing and integrating biological and cultural moral progress. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 20: 55.
9.
Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. (2009). The past achievements and future promises of developmental psychopathology: the coming of age of a discipline. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 16–25.
10.
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58, 7–19.
11.
Descartes, R. (1996). Discourse on method and meditations on first philosophy (D. Weissman, Ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12.
Di Paolo, E., Buhrmann, T., & Barandiaran, X. (2017). Sensorimotor life: An enactive proposal. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
13.
Ford, D. H., & Lerner, R. M. (1992). Developmental systems theory: An integrative approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
Four Arrows, & Narvaez, D. (2016). Reclaiming our indigenous worldview: A more authentic baseline for social/ecological justice work in education. In N. McCrary & W. Ross (Eds.), Working for social justice inside and outside the classroom: A community of teachers, researchers, and activists (pp. 93–112). In series, Social justice across contexts in education (S.J. Miller & L.D. Burns, Eds.). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
15.
Gómez-Robles, A., Hopkins, W.D., Schapiro, S.J., & Sherwood, C.C. (2015). Relaxed genetic control of cortical organization in human brains compared with chimpanzees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 12, 14799–14804.
16.
Gottlieb, G. (1970). Conceptions of prenatal development. In L.R. Aronson, D.S. Lehrman, E. Tobach, & J.S. Rosenblatt (Eds.), Development and evolution of behavior (pp. 111–137). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
17.
Gottlieb, G. (2002). On the epigenetic evolution of species-specific perception: The developmental manifold concept. Cognitive Development, 17, 1287–1300.
18.
Gottlieb, G. & Halpern, C.T. (2004). A relational view of causality in normal and abnormal development. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 421–435.
19.
Hacker, P.M.S. (2009). Philosophy: A contribution not to human knowledge but to human understanding. In A. O’Hear (Ed.), The nature of philosophy, Royal Institute of Philosophy Suppelment 65 (pp. 129–153). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Henrich, J., Heine, S.J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.
21.
Hewlett, B.S., & Lamb, M.E. (2005). Hunter-gatherer childhoods: Evolutionary, developmental and cultural perspectives. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine.
22.
Hutchins, E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, 265–288.
23.
Ingold, T. (2005). On the social relations of the hunter-gatherer band. In R.B. Lee & R. Daly (Eds.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of hunters and gatherers (pp. 399–410). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Keller, E.F. (2010). The mirage of the space between nature and nurture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
Kidner, D.W. (2001). Nature and psyche: Radical environmentalism and the politics of subjectivity. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
26.
Kuczynski, L., & De Mol, J. (2015). Dialectical models of socialization. In W.F. Overton & P.C. M. Molenaar (Vol. Eds.) & R.M. Lerner (Ed.-in-Chief), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science. Vol. 1: Theory & Method (7th ed., pp. 323–368). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
27.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
28.
Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes. Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29.
Landau, B. (2009). The importance of the nativist-empiricism debate: Thinking about primitives without primitive thinking. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 88–90.
30.
Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
32.
Lerner, R.M., & Overton, W.F. (2017). Reduction to absurdity: Why epigenetics invalidates all Models involving genetic reduction. Human Development, 60, 107–123.
33.
Lickliter, R., & Honeycutt, H. (2015). Biology, development, and human systems. In W.F. Overton, & P.C.M. Molenaar (Vol. Eds.) & R.M. Lerner (Ed.-in-Chief), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science. Vol. 1: Theory & Method (7th ed., pp. 162–207). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
34.
Lickliter, R., & Withingerton, D.C. (2017). Towards a truly developmental epigenetics. Human Development, 60, 124–138.
35.
Machado, A., & Silva, F.J. (2007). Toward a richer view of the scientific method: The role of conceptual analysis. American Psychologist, 62, 671–681.
36.
Malcolm, N. (1977). Thought and knowledge. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
37.
Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.
38.
Marshall, P.J. (2016). Embodiment and human development. Child Development Perspectives, 10, 245–250.
39.
Marshall, P.J. (2018). Embodiment. In A.S. Dick, & U. Muller (Eds.), Advancing Developmental Science: Philosophy, Theory, and Method (pp. 29–40). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
40.
Menary, R. (2010). The extended mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41.
Narvaez, D. (2013). The 99%-development and socialization within an evolutionary context: Growing up to become “A good and useful human being.” In D. Fry (Ed.), War, peace and human nature: The convergence of evolutionary and cultural views (pp. 643–672). New York: Oxford University Press.
42.
Narvaez, D., Panksepp, J., Schore, A., & Gleason, T. (Eds.) (2013). Evolution, early experience and human development: From research to practice and policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
43.
Noë, A. (2004). Action in perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44.
Overton, W.F. (1998). Developmental psychology: Philosophy, concepts, and methodology. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R.M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Theoretical models of human development: Vol. 1, Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., pp. 107–188). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
45.
Overton, W.F. (2006). Developmental psychology: Philosophy, concepts, methodology. In W. Damon, & R.M. Lerner (Series Ed.) & R.M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Theoretical models of human development: Vol. 1, Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., pp. 18–88). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
46.
Overton, W.F. (2008). Embodiment from a relational perspective. In W.F. Overton, U. Mueller, & J.L. Newman (Eds.), Developmental perspectives on embodiment and consciousness. (pp. 1–18). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
47.
Overton, W.F. (2012). Evolving scientific paradigms: Retrospective and prospective. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Paradigms in theory construction (pp. 31–66). New York, NY: Springer.
48.
Overton, W.F. (2015). Process and relational developmental systems. In W.F. Overton & P.C. Molenaar (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science, Vol. 1: Theory and method (pp. 9–62). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
49.
Overton, W.F., & Lerner, R.M. (2014). Fundamental concepts and methods in developmental science: A relational perspective. Research in Human Development, 11, 63–73.
50.
Oyama, S., Griffiths, P.E., & Gray, R.D. (2001). Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51.
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific theory. New York, NY: Basic Books.
52.
Rowlands, M. (2010). The new science of the mind: From extended mind to embodied phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
53.
Sahlins, M. (2008). The Western illusion of human nature. Chicago, IL: Prickly Paradigm Press.
54.
Shapiro, L. (2011). Embodied cognition. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
55.
Slife, B.D., & Williams, R.N. (1995). What’s behind the research? Discovering hidden assumptions in the behavioral sciences. London, UK: Sage.
56.
Smedslund, J. (1991). The pseudoempirical in psychology and the case for psychologic. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 325–338.
57.
Smolin, L. (2013). Time reborn: From the crisis in physics to the future of the universe. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
58.
Spelke, E., & Kinzler, K.D. (2007). Core knowledge. Developmental Science, 10, 89–96.
59.
Spelke, E., & Newport, E. (1998). Nativism, empiricism, and the developmental of knowledge. In R.M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 275–340). New York, NY: Wiley.
60.
Stewart, J., Gapenne, O., & Di Paolo, E.A. (Eds.) (2010). Enaction: Toward a new paradigm for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
61.
Strawson, P.F. (1959). Individuals: An essay in descriptive metaphysics. London, UK: Methuen & Co.
62.
Tabery, J. (2014). Beyond versus: The struggle to understand the interaction of nature and nurture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
63.
Trevathan, W.R. (2011). Human birth: An evolutionary perspective, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
64.
Varela, F.J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
65.
Wachtel, P.L. (1980). Investigation and its discontents: Some constraints on progress in psychological research. American Psychologist, 35, 399–408.
66.
Watkins, J.W.N. (1975). Metaphysics and the advancement of science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 26, 91–121.
67.
Wakefield, J.C. (2007). Why psychology needs conceptual analysts: Wachtel’s “discontents” revisited. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 12, 39–43.
68.
West-Eberhard, M.J. (2003). Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
69.
Wheeler, M. (2005). Reconstructing the cognitive world: The next step. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
70.
Witherington, D.C. (2015). Dynamic systems in developmental science. In W.F. Overton & P.C.M. Molenaar (Vol. Eds.) & R.M. Lerner (Ed.-in-Chief), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science. Vol. 1: Theory & Method (7th ed., pp. 63–112). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
71.
Witherington, D.C., & Lickliter, R. (2017). Transcending the nature-nurture debates through epigenetics: Are we there yet? Human Development, 60, 65–68.
72.
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations (G.E.M. Anscombe, transl.) (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.