Conceptual structure and the growth of scientific knowledge

How does scientific knowledge grow? This question has occupied a central place in the philosophy of science, stimulating heated debates but yielding no clear consensus. Many explanations can be understood in terms of whether and how they view the expansion of knowledge as proceeding through the accretion of scientific concepts into larger conceptual structures. Here we examine these views empirically by analysing 2,605,224 papers spanning five decades from both the social sciences (Web of Science) and the physical sciences (American Physical Society). Using natural language processing techniques, we create semantic networks of concepts, wherein noun phrases become linked when used in the same paper abstract. We then detect the core/periphery structures of these networks, wherein core concepts are densely connected sets of highly central nodes and periphery concepts are sparsely connected nodes that are highly connected to the core. For both the social and physical sciences, we observe increasingly rigid conceptual cores accompanied by the proliferation of periphery concepts. Subsequently, we examine the relationship between conceptual structure and the growth of scientific knowledge, finding that scientific works are more innovative in fields with cores that have higher conceptual churn and with larger cores. Furthermore, scientific consensus is associated with reduced conceptual churn and fewer conceptual cores. Overall, our findings suggest that while the organization of scientific concepts is important for the growth of knowledge, the mechanisms vary across time.