Focusing on Darwinism, David Hull argues that the protean character of conceptual systems is explained by their nature as historical entities which evolve. If they evolve as biological species do, Hull argues, then they cannot have an "essence" — a set of tenets that all and only instances of the conceptual system has throughout all time. There are no tenets a scientific research program must retain to count as an instance of a particular program. I advance two considerations against this view. First, research programs require a critical cohesiveness among their tenets to inspire and guide research. Second, it is the function of such programs to guide the search for answers to families of questions in a particular domain in a particular spirit. These factors dictate that conceptual systems must retain certain key tenets. This re-emergence of a sort of essentialism does not bar the evolution of conceptual systems, provided we recognize that there are patterns of evolution other than the one Hull considers (anagenesis). It also implies that conceptual systems simply evolve differently than species do. I defend this position by illustrating two episodes of conceptual evolution: the dispute between William Bateson and the British biometricians over discontinuous evolution, and the formation of Neo-Lamarckism in 19th century America. / Master of Arts

Made available in DSpace on 2016-06-02T19:33:11Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 PEREIRA_Tainara_2013.pdf: 1316115 bytes, checksum: e27f367a9554f43f23c9d5278c584514 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-03-28 / The existence of several lines of research permeating the field of microeconomics can be seen by the different approaches from each group of authors. This work presents two of such lines using the methodology of scientific research programs proposed by Lakatos. The lines analyzed were the neoclassical theory and neoschumpeterian (or evolutionary) theory. The main objective is to understand the concepts of competition and innovation under these two perspectives. With the secondary purpose of verify some adherence from the modifications in the protective belt of the research program with the observed reality, it was characterized the technical and institutional context for the theoretical formulation. In parallel with the presentation of the contexts that underlie the creation and modification of research programs, it was possible to infer about the progression of each theory. In the neoclassical case, it was argued that the program is degenerating by the side that concerns its changes, because those changes just to explain the puzzles that motivated them. For the neoschumpeterian theory is argued that the research program appears to be progressive, because it alters the protective belt to encompass new facts. Regarding the prevalence of neoclassical theory for economists, it seems that its mathematical formalization was responsible for bringing more enthusiasts, but with the advance of computational methods, the evolutionary model is also promising in this regard. / A existência de diversas linhas de pesquisa permeando o campo da microeconomia pode ser vista através das distintas abordagens em cada grupo de autores. Neste trabalho são apresentadas duas de tais vertentes utilizando-se da metodologia de programa de pesquisa científico, proposta por Lakatos. As correntes analisadas foram as teorias denominadas neoclássica e neoschumpeteriana (ou evolucionária). O objetivo principal do trabalho buscou entender os conceitos de concorrência e inovação em cada uma destas perspectivas. Com o objetivo secundário de verificar alguma aderência das modificações do cinturão protetor do programa de pesquisa com a realidade observada, foi caracterizado o contexto técnico e institucional contemporâneos à formulação teórica. Em paralelo, com a apresentação dos contextos que permeiam a criação e a alteração dos programas de pesquisa, foi possível inferir em relação à progressividade científica. No caso da teoria neoclássica argumenta-se que o programa esteja degenerando pelo lado das alterações em seu cinturão, que seriam apenas para explicar os puzzles que as motivaram. Para a teoria neoschumpeteriana é argumentado que o programa de pesquisa aparenta ser progressivo, pois altera o cinturão protetor de modo a abarcar fatos novos. Em relação à prevalência da teoria neoclássica para os economistas, argumenta-se que sua formalização matemática foi responsável por trazer entusiastas, mas que, com o avanço dos métodos computacionais, a modelagem evolucionária se mostra promissora neste quesito.