David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Biology and Philosophy 5 (3):293-311 (1990)
T. H. Morgan (1866–1945), the founder of the Drosophila research group in genetics that established the chromosome theory of Mendelian inheritance, has been described as a radical empiricist in the historical literature. His empiricism, furthermore, is supposed to have prejudiced him against certain scientific conclusions. This paper aims to show two things: first, that the sense in which the term empiricism has been used by scholars is too weak to be illuminating. It is necessary to distinguish between empiricism as an epistemological position and the so-called methodological empiricism. I will argue that the way the latter has been presented cannot distinguish an empiricist methodology from a non-empiricist one. Second, I will show that T. H. Morgan was not an epistemological empiricist as this term is usually defined in philosophy. The reason is that he believed in the existence of genes as material entities when they were unobservable entities when they were unobservable entities introduced to account for the phenotypic ratios found in breeding experiments. These two points, of course, are interrelated. If we were to water down the meaning of empiricis, perhaps we could call Morgan an empiricist. But then we would also fail to distinguish empiricism from realism.
|Keywords||Epistemological empiricism methodological empiricism realism genes T. H. Morgan|
|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
Garland E. Allen (1968). Thomas Hunt Morgan and the Problem of Natural Selection. Journal of the History of Biology 1 (1):113 - 139.
Elof Axel Carlson (1974). The Drosophila Group: The Transition From the Mendelian Unit to the Individual Gene. [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Biology 7 (1):31 - 48.
Lindley Darden (1977). William Bateson and the Promise of Mendelism. Journal of the History of Biology 10 (1):87 - 106.
Lindley Darden (1980). Book Review:Thomas Hunt Morgan, The Man and His Science Garland E. Allen. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 47 (4):662-.
Lindley Darden & Nancy Maull (1977). Interfield Theories. Philosophy of Science 44 (1):43-64.
Citations of this work BETA
N. Roll-Hansen (1992). Philosophical Ideas and Scientific Practice: A Note on the Empiricism of T.H. Morgan. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 7 (1):69-76.
Nils Roll-Hansen (1995). The Role of Theory in Experimental Life. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 26 (4):673-679.
Similar books and articles
Matthias Steup (2011). Empiricism, Metaphysics, and Voluntarism. Synthese 178 (1):19-26.
Marc Alspector-Kelly (2006). Constructive Empiricism and Epistemic Modesty: Response to van Fraassen and Monton. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 64 (3):371-379.
Dan Ryder & Oleg V. Favorov (2001). Empiricist Word Learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (6):1117-1117.
Stathis Psillos (2001). Studies in Scientific Realism. Foundations of Chemistry 3 (1):79-86.
Otávio Bueno (1999). Empiricism, Conservativeness, and Quasi-Truth. Philosophy of Science 66 (3):485.
Adrian Bardon (2007). Empiricism, Time-Awareness, and Hume's Manners of Disposition. Journal of Scottish Philosophy 5 (1):47-63.
Monte Cook (2008). Desgabets as a Cartesian Empiricist. Journal of the History of Philosophy 46 (4):pp. 501-515.
Marc Alspector-Kelly (2001). Should the Empiricist Be a Constructive Empiricist? Philosophy of Science 68 (4):413-431.
Peter Lipton (2006). What Can Bas Believe? Musgrave and Van Fraassen on Observability. Analysis 66 (3):226 - 233.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads21 ( #84,999 of 1,099,739 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #33,157 of 1,099,739 )
How can I increase my downloads?