Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:12:20.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Causal Efficacy: The Structure of Darwin's Argument Strategy in the Origin of Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Doren A. Recker
Doren A. Recker*
Affiliation:
Philosophy Department Johns Hopkins University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There are several interpretations of the argument structure of Darwin's Origin of Species, representing Covering-Law, Inference-to-the-Best-Explanation, and (more recently) Semantic models. I argue that while all three types of interpretation enjoy some textual support, none succeeds in capturing the overall strategy of the Origin, consistent with Darwin's claim that it is ‘one long argument’. I provide detailed criticisms of all three current models, and then offer an alternative interpretation based on the view that there are three main argument strategies in the Origin, all supporting the ‘causal efficacy’ of Darwin's theory. This interpretation provides both a more unified treatment of the text, and some important implications concerning the relation between general philosophical models of scientific theory support and specific historical cases.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , June 1987 , pp. 147 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I would like to thank Chris Swoyer, David Kitts, and Mary Jo Nye for their comments on an early draft of this paper. I would especially like to thank a reviewer for Philosophy of Science for criticisms and suggestions which resulted in a much better presentation of my views.

References

REFERENCES

Bowler, P. J. (1984), Evolution: The History of an Idea. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Buchdahl, G. (1969), Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cantor, G. (1975), “The Reception of the Wave Theory of Light in Britain”, in McCormmach (1975), pp. 109–132.Google Scholar
Colodny, R. E. (ed.) (1972), Paradigms and Paradoxes. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1899), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (2 Vols). Edited by F. Darwin. New York: D. Appleton and Co.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1903), More Letters of Charles Darwin. 2 Vols. Edited by F. Darwin and A. C. Seward. New York: D. Appleton and Co.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1958), The Origin of Species. (Based on 6th ed., 1872.) New York: Mentor.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1960), “Darwin's Notebooks on Transmutation of Species”, (Edited by Gavin deBeer), Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Historical Series 2: 3–183.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1964), On the Origin of Species. (Facsimile of 1st ed., 1859.) Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, C. (1969), The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809–1882. Edited by Barlow, Nora. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Fawcett, H. (1862), “On the Method of Mr. Darwin in His Treatise on the Origin of Species”, in Report of the 31st Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (September, 1861). London: John Murray, pp. 141–143.Google Scholar
Feigl, H., and Maxwell, G. (eds.) [1962] (1971), Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. vol. III. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, M. T. [1969] (1984), The Triumph of the Darwinian Method. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gillespie, N. C. (1979), Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Glymour, C. (1980), Theory and Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gray, A. (1877), “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection”, in A. Gray, Darwinia: Essays and Reviews Pertaining to Darwinism. New York: D. Appleton and Co., pp. 9–61.Google Scholar
Heilbron, J. L. (1980), “Experimental Natural Philosophy”, in Rousseau and Porter (1980), pp. 357–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. (1965), Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. (1966), Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. [1962] (1971), “Deductive-Nomological vs Statistical Explanation”, in Feigl and Maxwell [1962] (1971), pp. 98–169.Google Scholar
Herschel, J. F. W. [1830] (1966), A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy. New York: Johnson Reprint Corp.Google Scholar
Hopkins, W. (1860), “Physical Theories and the Phenomena of Life”, in Hull (1973), pp. 229–275.Google Scholar
Howard, J. (1982), Darwin. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1973), Darwin and His Critics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1966), “The Clock Metaphor and Hypotheses: The Impact of Descartes on English Methodological Thought, 1650–1670”, in Laudan (1981b), pp. 27–58.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1981a), “The Epistemology of Light: Some Methodological Issues in the Subtle Fluids Debate”, in Laudan (1981b), pp. 111–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1981b), Science and Hypothesis: Historical Essays on Scientific Methodology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, E. A. (1983), “The Nature of Darwin's Support for the Theory of Natural Selection”, Philosophy of Science 50: 112–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1964), “Introduction” to Darwin (1964), pp. vii–xxvii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1982), The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McCormmach, R. (ed.) (1975), Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Newton, I. (1962), Principia, Vol. II: The System of the World. Translated by Andrew Motte and Florian Cajori. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Newton, I. (1979), Opticks. (Based on 4th ed., 1730.) New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Rousseau, G. S., and Porter, R. (eds.) (1980), The Ferment of Knowledge: Studies in the Historiography of 18th Century Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, M. (1973), The Philosophy of Biology. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. (1975a), “Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution: An Analysis”, Journal of the History of Biology 8: 219–241.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. (1975b), “Darwin's Debt to Philosophy”, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 6: 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, M. (1979), The Darwinian Revolution: Science Red in Tooth and Claw. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Suppe, F. (ed.) (1974), The Structure of Scientific Theories. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Thagard, P. (1978), “The Best Explanation: Criteria for Theory Choice”, Journal of Philosophy 75: 76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (1970), “On the Extension of Beth's Semantics of Physical Theories”, Philosophy of Science 37: 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (1972), “A Formal Approach to the Philosophy of Science”, in Colodny (1972), pp. 303–366.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whewell, W. (1967), The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences. (2 Vols., 2nd ed., 1847.) New York: Johnson Reprint Corp.Google Scholar