Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-tbj44 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T16:57:06.273Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discussion: Darwin's Argument in The Origin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

M. J. S. Hodge
M. J. S. Hodge*
Affiliation:
Division of History and Philosophy of Science, Department of Philosophy, University of Leeds
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Various claims have been made, recently, that Darwin's argumentation in the Origin instantiates and so supports some general philosophical proposal about scientific theorizing, for example, the “semantic view”. But these claims are grounded in various incorrect analyses of that argumentation. A summary is given here of an analysis defended at greater length in several papers by the present author. The historical and philosophical advantages of this analysis are explained briefly. Darwin's argument comprises three distinct evidential cases on behalf of natural selection, cases, that is, for its existence, its adequacy and its responsibility. Theorizing, today, about evolution by natural selection involves a similar structure of evidential and explanatory concerns.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , September 1992 , pp. 461 - 464
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 by 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

Send reprint requests to the author, Division of History and Philosophy of Science, Department of Philosophy, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, ENGLAND.

References

Darwin, C. ([1859] 1964), On the Origin of Species. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hodge, M. (1977), “The Structure and Strategy of Darwin's ‘Long Argument‘”, British Journal for the History of Science 10: 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, M. (1987), “Natural Selection as a Causal, Empirical and Probabilistic Theory”, in Krüger, L. (ed.), The Probabilistic Revolution, vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 233–270.Google Scholar
Hodge, M. (1989), “Darwin's Theory and Darwin's Argument”, in Ruse, M. (ed.), What the Philosophy of Biology Is: Essays Dedicated to David Hull. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, M. (1991a), “Discussion Note: Darwin, Whewell, and Natural Selection”, Biology and Philosophy 6: 457–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, M. (1991b), “The History of the Earth, Life and Man: Whewell and Palaetiological Science”, in Fisch, M. and Schaffer, S. (eds.), William Whewell: A Composite Portrait. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 255–288.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1989), “A Function for Actual Examples in Philosophy of Science”, in Ruse, M. (ed.), What the Philosophy of Biology Is: Essays Dedicated to David Hull. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1985), “Darwin's Achievement”, in Rescher, N. (ed.), Reason and Rationality in Natural Science. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, pp. 127–189.Google Scholar
Lloyd, E. (1983), “The Nature of Darwin's Support for the Theory of Natural Selection”, Philosophy of Science 50: 112–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recker, D. (1987), “Causal Efficacy: The Structure of Darwin's Argument Strategy in the Origin of Species”, Origin of Species 54: 147–175.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. (1975), “Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution: An Analysis”, Journal of the History of Biology 8: 219–241.Google ScholarPubMed
Sintonen, M. (1990), “Discussion: Darwin's Long and Short Arguments”, Philosophy of Science 57: 677–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, P. (1978), “The Best Explanation: Criteria for Theory Choice”, The Journal of Philosophy 75: 76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, F. (1992), Empiricism and Darwin's Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer. In press.Google Scholar