David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 76 (3):355-371 (2009)
What, if anything, is wrong with typological thinking? The question is important, for some evolutionary developmental biologists appear to espouse a form of typology. I isolate four allegations that have been brought against it. They include the claim that typological thinking is mystical; the claim that typological thinking is at odds with the fact of evolution; the claim that typological thinking is committed to an objectionable metaphysical view, which Elliott Sober calls the ‘natural state model’; and finally the view (endorsed by Ron Amundson and Günter Wagner) that typological thinking—and specifically evolutionary developmental biology’s typological thinking—is committed to a peculiar form of causation that does not fit neatly into the causal models endorsed by population genetics. I argue that, properly understood, the typological thinking of evolutionary developmental biology does not run into any of these problems. *Received April 2008; revised August 2009. †To contact the author, please write to: Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, CB2 3RH Cambridge, United Kingdom; e‐mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Tim Lewens (2012). Human Nature: The Very Idea. Philosophy and Technology 25 (4):459-474.
Tim Lewens (2012). Species, Essence and Explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 43 (4):751-757.
Phillip Honenberger (2015). Grene and Hull on Types and Typological Thinking in Biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 50:13-25.
Mark F. Riegner (2013). Ancestor of the New Archetypal Biology: Goethe's Dynamic Typology as a Model for Contemporary Evolutionary Developmental Biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 44 (4):735-744.
Similar books and articles
Davida E. Kellogg (1988). “And Then a Miracle Occurs” — Weak Links in the Chain of Argument From Punctuation to Hierarchy. Biology and Philosophy 3 (1):3-28.
Wladyslaw Tatarkiewicz (1960). Nomological and Typological Sciences. Journal of Philosophy 57 (7):234-240.
Manfred Krifka, Chapter X Case Syncretism in German Feminines: Typological, Functional and Structural Aspects.
Charles F. Blaich & Humberto Barreto (2001). Typological Thinking, Statistical Significance, and the Methodological Divergence of Experimental Psychology and Economics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):405-405.
Hugh Lehman (1967). Are Biological Species Real? Philosophy of Science 34 (2):157-167.
Lisa Gannett (2001). Racism and Human Genome Diversity Research: The Ethical Limits of "Population Thinking". Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S479-.
L. Gannett (2003). The Normal Genome in Twentieth-Century Evolutionary Thought. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 34 (1):143-185.
Ron Amundson (1998). Typology Reconsidered: Two Doctrines on the History of Evolutionary Biology. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 13 (2):153-177.
Alan Love (2009). Typology Reconfigured: From the Metaphysics of Essentialism to the Epistemology of Representation. Acta Biotheoretica 57 (1-2):51-75.
Carl Chung (2003). On the Origin of the Typological/Population Distinction in Ernst Mayr's Changing Views of Species, 1942-1959. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 34 (2):277-296.
Added to index2010-01-09
Total downloads81 ( #25,662 of 1,699,594 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #88,892 of 1,699,594 )
How can I increase my downloads?