Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:46:43.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

There's More than One Way to Recognize a Darwinian: Lyell's Darwinism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Doren Recker
Doren Recker*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Oklahoma State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There are a number of reasons for doubting the standard view that scientific theories (understood as sets of connected statements) are the best units for investigating scientific continuity and change (that is, research programs continue as long as groups of scientists accept the central tenets of such theories). Here it is argued that one weakness of this approach is that it cannot be used to demarcate adequately scientific communities or conceptual systems (that is, it fails as a classificatory scheme). Recent alternative proposals by Philip Kitcher and David Hull are assessed in terms of their usefulness in demarcating “Darwinism” and the “Darwinians” in the first decade or so after the publication of The Origin of Species, focusing on the case of Charles Lyell.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , September 1990 , pp. 459 - 478
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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.)

Footnotes

†

I am grateful to two referees whose comments helped me clarify a number of points.

References

Duke of Argyll (1877), The Reign of Law (16th ed.). London: Daldy, Isbister, and Co.Google Scholar
Bartholomew, M. (1973), “Lyell and Evolution: An Account of Lyell's Response to the Prospects of an Evolutionary Ancestry for Man”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 6: 261–303.Google Scholar
Bendali, D. S. (ed.) (1983), Evolution: From Molecules to Men. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bowler, P. (1983), The Eclipse of Darwinism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Boyer, D., Grim, P., and Sanders, J. (eds.) (1979), The Philosopher's Annual, Vol. II. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Carpenter, William B. (1860), “The Theory of Development in Nature”, British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review 25: 367–404.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1859), On the Origin of Species (facsimile of 1st ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1964.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1969), The Autobiography of Charles Darwin (ed. Nora Barlow). New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Darwin, F. (ed.) (1899), Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (2 vols.). New York: D. Appleton.Google Scholar
Darwin, F., and Seward, A. C. (eds.) (1903), More Letters of Charles Darwin (2 vols). London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Gray, A. (1884), Darwiniana. New York: D. Appleton.Google Scholar
Gruber, J. W. (1960), A Conscience In Conflict: The Life of St. George Jackson Mivart. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Hooker, J. D. (1881), “Report as President of the Geography Section”, Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1881 (York), pp. 727–738.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1973), Darwin and His Critics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1978), “A Matter of Individuality”, Philosophy of Science 45: 335–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1982), “Exemplars and Scientific Change”, PSA 1982, Vol. II, pp. 479–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1983), “Darwin and the Nature of Science”, in Bendali 1983, pp. 63–80.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1985), “Darwinism as a Historical Entity”, in Kohn 1985, pp. 773–811.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1986), “Conceptual Evolution and the Eye of the Octopus”, in Marcus Barcan, Dorn, and Weingartner 1986, pp. 643–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxley, L., (ed.) (1900), Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley (2 vols.). New York: D. Appleton.Google Scholar
Huxley, L., (ed.) (1918), Life and Letters of Joseph Dalton Hooker (2 vols.). New York: D. Appleton.Google Scholar
Huxley, T. H. (1873), Critiques and Addresses. New York: D. Appleton.Google Scholar
Huxley, T. H. (1887), “On the Reception of the Origin of Species”, in F. Darwin 1899, Vol. I, pp. 533–558.Google Scholar
Jenkin, F. (1867), “The Origin of Species”, in Hull 1973, pp. 303–344.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1978), “Theories, Theorists, and Theoretical Change”, in Boyer, Grim, and Sanders 1979, pp. 128–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1982), “Genes”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 33: 337–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1983), The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1984), “Species”, Philosophy of Science 51: 308–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1985), “Darwin's Achievement”, in Rescher 1985, pp. 127–189.Google Scholar
Kohn, D. (ed.) (1985), The Darwinian Heritage. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lyell, Charles (1826) “Transactions of the Geological Society of London”, Quarterly Review 34: 507–540.Google Scholar
Lyell, Charles (1830–1833), Principles of Geology (1st ed., 3 vols.). London: John Murray.Google Scholar
[Lyell, Charles] (1851), “Anniversary Address, GSL”, Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 7: xv–lxxvi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Lyell, Charles] (1863), The Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man. Philadelphia: George W. Childs.Google Scholar
[Lyell, Charles] (1874), Principals of Geology (11th ed.), Vol. II. New York: D. Appleton.Google Scholar
Lyell, K. (ed.) (1881), Life, Letters, and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell (2 vols.). London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Marcus Barcan, R., Dorn, G. J. W., and Weingartner, P. (eds.) (1986), Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, VII. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1982), “Comments on David Hull's Paper on Exemplars and Type-Specimens”, PSA 1982, Vol. II, pp. 504–511.Google Scholar
[Mivart, St. George Jackson] (1871a), “Darwin's Descent of Man”, Quarterly Review 131: 47–90.Google Scholar
[Mivart, St. George Jackson] (1871b), On the Genesis of Species. New York: D. Appleton.Google Scholar
[Mivart, St. George Jackson] (1874), “Primitive Man: Tylor and Lubbock”, Quarterly Review 137: 40–77.Google Scholar
[Mivart, St. George Jackson] (1892), Essays and Criticisms, (Vol. II). London: Osgood and Mcilvane.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Mivart, St. George Jackson] (1897), “Some Reminiscences of Thomas Henry Huxley”, 19th Century 42: 985–998.Google Scholar
Ospovat, D. (1976), “The Influence of Karl Ernst von Baer's Embryology, 1828–1859: A Reappraisal in Light of Richard Owen's and William B. Carpenter's ‘Palaeontological Application of von Baer's law‘”, Journal of the History of Biology 9: 1–28.Google Scholar
[Owen, R.] (1851), “Lyell on Life and Its Successive Development”, Quarterly Review 89: 412–451.Google Scholar
[Owen, R.] (1860), “Darwin on the Origin of Species”, in Hull 1973, pp. 175–213.Google Scholar
[Owen, R.] (1980) [1860], Palaeontology. New York: Arno.Google Scholar
Pictet, F. J. (1860), “On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin”, in Hull 1973, pp. 142–152.Google Scholar
Rescher, N. (ed.) (1985), Reason and Rationality in Science. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Rudwick, M. J. S. (1974), “Darwin and Glenn Roy: A ‘Great Failure’ in Scientific Method?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 5: 97–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudwick, M. J. S. (1982), “Charles Darwin in London: The Integration of Public and Private Science”, Isis 73: 186–206.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. (1979), The Darwinian Revolution. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Suppe, F. (ed.) (1974), The Structure of Scientific Theories. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Wallace, A. R. (1855), “On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species”, in Wallace 1875, pp. 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Wallace, A. R.] (1869), “Geological Climates and the Origin of Species”, Quarterly Review 126: 359–394.Google Scholar
[Wallace, A. R.] (1875), Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection. London: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar
Whewell, W. (1860), On the Philosophy of Discovery. London: John W. Parker.Google Scholar
[Whilbeforce, S.] (1860), “Darwin's Origin of Species”, Quarterly Review 108: 225–264.Google Scholar
Wilson, L. G. (ed.) (1970), Sir Charles Lyell's Journals on the Species Question. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar