David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Biology and Philosophy 15 (3):301-310 (2000)
Throughout his career David Hull has sought to bring the philosophy of science into closer contact with science and especially with biological science (Hull 1969, 1997b). This effort has taken many forms. Sometimes it has meant ‘either explaining basic biology to philosophers or explaining basic philosophy to biologists’ (Hull 1996, p. 77). The ﬁrst of these tasks, simple as it sounds, has been responsible for revolutionary changes. It is well known that traditional philosophy of science, modeled as it was on theoretical physics, proved inadequate when philosophers turned their attention to biological science. Biological examples have driven major revisions of accounts of reduction (Hull 1974; Schaffner 1993, Ch. 9), laws of nature (Beatty et al. 1997), theories (Lloyd 1988) and natural kinds (Wilson 1999, Part III). Nor is explaining basic philosophy to biologists a task to be looked down upon. It is useful, not because philosophy has all the answers, but because scientists must think about how to do science, that is doing philosophy of science and scientists frequently reinvent philosophical views with known ﬂaws. Early in his career Hull found biological systematists in the grip of a crude operationalism about scientiﬁc concepts and said so in the pages of Systematic Zoology (Hull 1968). For the next thirty years, as biologists debated the nature of species and the correct principles of classiﬁcation, Hull added a philosophical note at the same congresses and in the same journals (Hull 1970, 1976, 1980, 1997a, 1999).
|Keywords||Philosophy Philosophy of Biology Evolutionary Biology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Michael Ruse (1987). Biological Species: Natural Kinds, Individuals, or What? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (2):225-242.
Alex Rosenberg (1992). Selection and Science: Critical Notice of David Hull's Science as a Process. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 7 (2):217-228.
Todd Grantham (1994). Does Science Have a “Global Goal?”: A Critique of Hull's View of Conceptual Progress. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 9 (1):85-97.
K. Brad Wray (2000). Invisible Hands and the Success of Science. Philosophy of Science 67 (1):163-175.
Jane Maienschein (2000). ``Why Study History for Science?''. Biology and Philosophy 15 (3):339-348.
Todd A. Grantham (2000). Evolutionary Epistemology, Social Epistemology, and the Demic Structure of Science. Biology and Philosophy 15 (3):443-463.
Ron Amundson & Laurence D. Smith (1984). Clark Hull, Robert Cummins, and Functional Analysis. Philosophy of Science 51 (December):657-666.
Robert C. Cummins (1983). Analysis and Subsumption in the Behaviorism of Hull. Philosophy of Science 50 (March):96-111.
David L. Hull (2001). Science and Selection: Essays on Biological Evolution and the Philosophy of Science. Cambridge University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #150,945 of 1,413,435 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #51,777 of 1,413,435 )
How can I increase my downloads?