Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Darwin, Schleiden, Whewell, and the “London Doctors”: Evolutionism and Microscopical Research in the Nineteenth Century

  • Article
  • Published:
Journal for General Philosophy of Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper discusses some philosophical and historical connections between, and within, nineteenth century evolutionism and microscopical research. The principal actors are mainly Darwin, Schleiden, Whewell and the “London Doctors,” Arthur Henfrey and Edwin Lankester. I demonstrate that the apparent alliances—particularly Darwin/Schleiden (through evolutionism) and Schleiden/Whewell (through Kantian philosophy of science)—obscure the deep methodological differences between evolutionist and microscopical biology that lingered on until the mid-twentieth century. Through an understanding of the little known significance of Schleiden’s programme of microscopical research and by comparing certain features of his methodology to the activities of the “London Doctors,” we can identify the origin of this state of affairs. In addition, the outcome provides an insight into a critique of Buchdahl’s view on Schleiden’s philosophical conception.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Orel (1979). Schleiden’s programme of microscopical research and Mendel’s genetics were compatible and shared physicalist objectives in the long run. However, Schleiden’s microscopy was not quantitive and did not include idealisation (see, especially, Mendel’s substitution of real trait differences of degree [↑↓ wrinkled, ↑↓ tall etc.] by an ideal distinctness [± wrinkled, ± tall etc.]). What both researchers had in common was that (in contrast to Darwin’s attitude) biological progress is based on neglecting the manifold of appearances in favour of dealing with a small number of selected phenomena. This is not the appropriate place to comment on Darwin’s views on nature in general, but the fact that a respected historian (Richards 2002) finds good reasons to connect them to Humboldt’s conception of Kosmos in the sense of “a harmoniously unified network of integrally related parts” (Richards 2002, p. 10) illuminates the difference to just focusing on cells and idealised peas.

    In my opinion (to be presented in more detail in another paper), the roots of Mendel’s analytic procedure are a) intuitive idealisation in traditional plant breeding; and b) the so-called analysis of phenomena in modern physics (or ‘Galilean idealisation’). Cf. Falk (2007). Mendel's sources regarding the latter are to be found in the writings and practices of his teachers in physics (Doppler, Ettingshausen) and the younger Herschel, and not in botany (nor in that of Mendel’s mentor Unger or of Schleiden, whose methodology Unger admired). A systematic comparison of Mendel’s genetics to Darwin’s concept of gemmula is given in Deichmann, this issue.

  2. Buchdahl (1973/1989), Buchdahl (1971/1991). It was perhaps inevitable that Buchdahl in his Cambridge department would deal with Whewell. As for Schleiden, it was according to Buchdahl's own recollection (private communication), a paragraph in Cassirer (1957, pp. 161–165) that attracted his attention. I mention this because it demonstrates that Buchdahl’s Kantian/Friesian reading has already a neo-Kantian antecedent. As for the contents of Cassirer’s discussion of Schleiden, suffice it to say that it is relatively short and focuses on the maxim of “Entwicklungsgeschichte.” It is in all relevant aspects dominated by Buchdahl’s article. Whewell is not mentioned by Cassirer in this context, nor in the latter's detailed investigation of post-Kantian systems (Cassirer 1923). Jahn (1991a) and Breidbach (1999) do not take Buchdahl’s systematic reconstruction into consideration but follow Schleiden’s own explicit attachments to Fries and Kant.

  3. See, especially, the writings collected in (Charpa 1989).

  4. See the edition, by (Buchdahl and Laudan 1967), of Whewell in German, Whewell (1840), with remarkable historical additions by the astronomer v. Littrow.

  5. A much more sophisticated reconstruction of Buchdahl’s model of scientific progress is given by Jardine (2003). The main writings in this regard are Buchdahl (1969, 1970, 1992).

  6. Schleiden (1863, p. 8). Of minor importance is Schleiden’s discussion of Whewells’s observations on tides Schleiden (1865, p. 65).

  7. Schleiden (1843, p. 75, p. 83).

  8. Apelt (1854, p. 187).

  9. Roget (1840, p. 56).

  10. See below (footnote 11).

  11. Cf. Whewell (1837, vol. 3, book 16, chap. 7).

  12. This provides as least one rationale for Whewell’s initial scepticism and later hostility towards the Origin, causing him to ban the book from the Library of Trinity College. See also Darwin’s letter to Lyell, 4 January 1860, in F. Darwin (1887, p. 261).

  13. Cf. Fries’ letter (Fries 1989) and Schleiden's reaction, affording Linné and others more respect, but ignoring Fries’ insisting upon the priority of taxonomy.

  14. Cf. Charpa (1988).

  15. On the Berlin context see Jahn (1991a). The principle of Entwicklungsgeschichte varies the practices and opinions of Caspar Friedrich Wolff. It was this track, which Schleiden followed from 1837 on, that led to his cell-research. Cf. Mylott (2002, pp. 189–190).

  16. Since Ruse (1975), Whewell’s role (besides that of Herschel) has been discussed so extensively (e.g. Curtis 1987, Ruse 2000) that it is sometimes considered overdone, if not entirely exhausted (Hodge 2003, p. 68).

  17. "Darwin’s Theorie ist sehr einfach und gleich fast dem Ei des Columbus. Er geht von verhältnißmäßig wenigen ganz bekannten Thatsachen aus, leitet daraus seine Schlüsse ab, oder entwickelt vielmehr nur das allgemeine Gesetz, welches in jenen Thatsachen schon liegt und stellt dann seine Ansicht mit solcher Sorgfalt und Umsicht, mit so großem Umfang von Kenntnissen gegen alle Einwendungen sicher, dass sich irgend Erhebliches schwerlich gegen dieselben noch vorbringen lassen wird." Schleiden (1863, p. 131).

  18. See first edition of the Grundzüge, Schleiden (1842, §190 et passim).

  19. Cf. Junker (1995).

  20. Cf. Schleiden (1860).

  21. Schleiden (1865, p. 265), on this episode see Scholz (2003).

  22. Schleiden (1863, p. 9).

  23. Darwin (1868, pp. 271–272, 489–490).

  24. Darwin (1871, vol. 2, p. 30).

  25. Schleiden (1869).

  26. Darwin (ca, 1850), undated manuscript DAR 71, pp. 38–42, Cambridge University Library.

  27. Schleiden (1848b, pp. 277–278).

  28. Schleiden (1848b, p. 288).

  29. Schleiden (1848b), pp. 280–281).

  30. Schleiden (1848b, p. 289).

  31. Schleiden (1848b, p. 283).

  32. Schleiden (1848b, p. 290).

  33. Schleiden (1848b, p. 291).

  34. See Haeckel’s letter, dated March, 4 1861, printed in Uschmann (1954, pp. 57–58).

  35. Cf. Schweber (1985, p. 35).

  36. Cf. Gruber (1985).

  37. See above (footnote 17).

  38. Cf. Schweber (1985, pp. 39–47).

  39. Oliver (1913, p. 192).

  40. Griffith and Henfrey (1856, p. xv).

  41. Griffith and Henfrey (1856, pp. 46, 652).

  42. Henfrey (1858b).

  43. Henfrey (1858a).

  44. Henfrey (1847).

  45. Cf. the contemporary satirical picture of the "Monster soup commonly called Thames Water,” showing a woman with a microscope, alarmed by the dangerous looking living beings in a drop of polluted liquid, is reprinted in Porter (2001, p. 266).

  46. This is not exact. In contrast to his own presentation, Lankester’s translation includes an Appendix C containing new passages from the 3rd German edition. The reason may have been that Schleiden here discusses, among other topics, the problem of cell formation and von Mohl’s observation of the multiplication of cells by division, and not—as Schleiden in the beginning had erroneously assumed—by ‘free’ formation similar to growing crystals (“In conclusion, I will only observe, that from my own researches I must accede to these results of Mohl’s in every respect”, Schleiden (1849, p. 574).

  47. Schleiden (1849, p. iii).

  48. Schleiden (1849, p. iii).

  49. Prichard (1855, p. 69).

  50. On John Ray as a model still of the next generation, and on E. Ray Lankester as adherent of the original Darwin/Wallace position, see Travis, this issue.

  51. Lankester (1846, preface, p. viii, ix).

  52. As for earlier examples of this of type of methodology, see the works of Jean Senebier and others on the “art of observation.” Cf. Marx (1974) As is well known, mainstream twentieth century philosophy of science has classified such reflections and the entire discussion of inquiry as something related to the philosophically insignificant “context of discovery.”

  53. To the best of my recall, it was at first Anne Mylott (Bloomington) who, in a discussion on her excellent dissertation thesis (Mylott 2002), tinkered with the idea that Schleiden’s Grundzüge could be more adequately read not as a philosophical treatise but as a manual of job instructions. cf. already (Mylott 1997).

  54. On this and other details of Schleiden’s life see Jahn and Schmidt (2005).

  55. Gruber (1985, p. 11). On Darwin’s interest at that time in general, see Hodge (2003).

  56. On this as a response to “Herschellian” demands see Hodge (1977).

  57. Cf. Goldman (1986), Thagard (1997), Charpa and Deichmann (2004), Charpa (2008).

  58. The “competence-approach” is elaborated in more detail with regard to Schleiden in Charpa (1999, 2003, 2005). It also applies to cases of twentieth century research (Charpa 2001, 2008; Charpa and Deichmann 2004, 2007; Deichmann 2008).

References

  • Apelt, E. F. (1854). Die Theorie der Induction. Leipzig: Engelmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breidbach, O. (1999). Zur Anwendung der Friesschen Philosophie in der Botanik. In W. Hogrebe & K. Herrmann (Eds.), Jakob Friedrich Fries. Philosoph, Naturwissenschaftler und Mathematiker (pp. 221–242). Frankfurt: Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchdahl, G. (1969). Metaphysics and the philosophy of science. The classical origins, Descartes to Kant. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchdahl, G. (1970). History of science and criteria of choice. In R. H. Stuewer (Ed.), Historical and philosophical perspectives of science (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science) (Vol. 5, pp. 204–229). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchdahl, G. (1971[1991]). Inductivist versus deductivist approaches in the philosophy of science as illustrated by some controversies between Whewell and Mill. Monist, 55, 343–367. Reprinted from William Whewell: A composite portrait, pp. 311–344 by M. Fisch & S. Schaffer (Eds.), Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Buchdahl, G. (1973/1989). Leitende Prinzipien und Induktion: Matthias Schleiden und die Methodologie der Botanik. In Charpa (1989), 315–345, rev. version of: Leading principles and induction: The methodology of Matthias Schleiden. In R. Giere & R. S. Westfall (Eds.), Foundations of scientific method: The nineteenth century (pp. 23–52). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

  • Buchdahl, G. (1992). Kant and the dynamics of reason: Essays on the structure of Kant’s philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchdahl, G., & Laudan, L. (Eds.). (1967). William Whewell. The historical and philosophical works (Vol. 10). London: Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassirer, E. (1923 [1974]). Das Erkenntnisproblem in der Philosophie und Wissenschaft der neueren Zeit (Vol. 3), Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

  • Cassirer, E. (1957 [1973]). Das Erkenntnisproblem in der Philosophie und Wissenschaft der neueren Zeit (Vol. 4), Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

  • Charpa, U. (1988). Methodologie der Verzeitlichung: Schleiden. Whewell und das entwicklungsgeschichtliche Projekt. Philosophia Naturalis, 25, 75–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charpa, U. (Ed.). (1989). Matthias Jakob Schleiden: Wissenschaftsphilosophische Schriften. Köln: Dinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charpa, U. (1999). Schleidens Kritik an Hegel und Schelling. Abriss einer reliabilistischen Methodologie. In W. Hogrebe & K. Herrmann (Eds.), Jakob Friedrich Fries. Philosoph, Naturwissenschaftler und Mathematiker (pp. 255–281). Frankfurt: Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charpa, U. (2001). Wissen und Handeln. Grundzüge einer Forschungstheorie. Stuttgart: Metzler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charpa, U. (2003). Matthias Jakob Schleiden (1804–1881): The history of Jewish interest in science and the methodology of microscopic botany. Aleph: Historical Studies in Science and Judaism, 3, 213–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charpa, U. (2005). Matthias Jakob Schleiden. In T. Bach & O. Breidbach (Eds.), Naturphilosophie nach Schelling (pp. 627–653), Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Fromann-Holzboog.

  • Charpa, U. (2008). On how Watson and Crick discovered what Watson and Crick had suggested: The ‘folk’ concept of discovery rediscovered. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 30, 7–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charpa, U., & Deichmann, U. (2004). Vertrauensvorschuss und wissenschaftliches Fehlverhalten. Eine reliabilistische Modellierung der Fälle Abderhalden, Goldschmidt, Moewus und Waldschmidt-Leitz. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 27, 187–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charpa, U., & Deichmann, U. (2007). Jewish Scientists as geniuses and epigones—Scientific practices and attitudes towards them: Albert Einstein, Ferdinand Cohn, Richard Goldschmidt. Studia Rosenthaliana, 40, 12–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, R. C. (1987). Darwin as an epistemologist. Annals of Science, 44, 379–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darden, L., & Maull, N. (1977). Interfield theories. Philosophy of Science, 44, 43–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1850?). Manuscript DAR 71, 38–42. Cambridge University Library.

  • Darwin, C. (1851). A monograph of the sub-class Cirrpedia, with figures of all the species. The Lepadidae; or, pedunculated Cirripedes. London: Ray Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1868). The variation of animals and plants under domestication. London: Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex (Vol. 2). London: Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, F. (1887). The life and letters of Charles Darwin: Including an autobiographical chapter. London: Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deichmann, U. (2008). Challenging the protein dogma of the gene: Oswald T. Avery—a revolutionary conservative. In O. Oren Harman & M. Michael Dietrich (Eds.), Rebels of life: Iconoclastic biologists of the twentieth century (pp. 154–173). New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk, R. (2007). Genetic analysis. In M. Mohan & C. Stevens (Eds.), Philosophy of biology (Vol. III, pp. 249–308). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fries, J. F. (1989). Handschriftliche Notiz zum Manuskript der Grundzüge der wissenschaftlichen Botanik. In Charpa (1989, pp. 313–314).

  • Goldman, A. I. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, J. W., & Henfrey, A. (1856). The micrographic dictionary. A guide to the examination of the structure and nature of microscopic objects. London: Van Voorst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, H. E. (1985). Going to the limit: Toward the construction of Darwin’s theory (1832–1839). In D. Kohn (Ed.), The Darwinian heritage (pp. 9–34). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henfrey, A. (1847). Outlines of structural and physiological botany. London: Van Voorst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henfrey, A. (1856). See above: Griffith & Henfrey (1856).

  • Henfrey, A. (1858a). Elementary introduction to the subject of vegetable physiology, part II. Journal of The Royal Agricultural Society of England, 18, 3–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henfrey, A. (1858b). An elementary course of botany, structural, physiological, and systematic. London: Van Voorst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, J. (1977). The structure and strategy of Darwin’s “Long Argument”. British Journal for the History of Science, 10, 237–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, J. (2003). The notebook programmes and projects of Darwin’s London years. In J. Hodge & G. Radick (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Darwin (pp. 40–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jahn, I. (1991a). The influence of Jakob Friedrich Fries on Matthias Schleiden. In W. R. Woodward & R. S. Cohen (Eds.), World views and scientific discipline formation (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 134) (pp. 357–365), Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Jahn, I. (1991b). Die Rolle der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin im interdisziplinären Wissensaustausch des 19. Jahrhunderts. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin. Neue Reihe, 31, 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahn, I., & Schmidt, I. (2005). Matthias Jacob Schleiden (1804–1881): Sein Leben in Selbstzeugnissen. (Acta Nova Leopoldina 44). Stuttgart: Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jardine, N. (2003). Hermeneutic strategies in Gerd Buchdahl’s Kantian philosophy of science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 34A, 183–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Junker, T. (1995). Zur Rezeption der Darwinschen Theorien bei deutschen Botanikern (1859–1880). In E. M. Engels (Ed.), Die Rezeption von Evolutionstheorien im 19. Jahrhundert (1859-1880) (pp. 147–181). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. (1984). 1953 and all that: A tale of two sciences. Philosophical Review, 93, 335–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lankester, E. (Ed.). (1846). Memorials of John Ray: Consisting of his life […]. London: Ray Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lankester, E. (1855). (Ed.) [W. MacGillivray] The natural history of Dee Side and Braemar. London: For private Circulation.

  • Lankester, E. (1860). Half-hours with microscope. Being a popular guide to the use of the microscope as a means of amusement and instruction. London: Allen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lankester, E. (1865). (Ed.) [W. B. Carpenter], Vegetable physiology and systematic botany. London: Bell and Daldy.

  • Lankester, E. (1872). Practical physiology: Being a school manual of health for the use of classes and general reading. London: Hardwicke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, J. (1974). L’art d’observer au XVIIIe siécle: Jean Senebier et Charles Bonnet. Janus, 6, 1201–1220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mylott, A. (1997). Cells, life force, and reductionism in the botany of Matthias Jacob Schleiden. In R. Dodel, et al. (Eds.), Ideengeschichte und Wissenschaftsphilosophie (pp. 183–196). Köln: Dinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mylott, A. (2002). The roots of cell theory in sap, spores, and Schleiden. Diss. Thesis. Indiana University.

  • Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, F. W. (Ed.). (1913). Makers of British botany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orel, V. (1979). The teaching of M. J. Schleiden and its possible influence on G. Mendel. Janus, 55, 33–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, R. (2001). London. A social history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prichard, J. C. (1855). The natural history of man: Comprising inquiries into the modifying influence of physical and moral agencies on the different tribes of the humans family (4th ed.). London: Baillière.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, R. J. (2002). The romantic conception of life: Science and philosophy in the age of Goethe. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roget, P. M. (1840). Animal and vegetable physics: Considered with reference to natural theology. London: Pickering.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. (1975). Darwin’s debt to philosophy: An examination of the influence of the philosophical ideas of John F. W. Herschel and William Whewell on the development of Darwin’s theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 6, 159–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. (2000). Darwin and the philosophers: Epistemological factors in the development and reception of the theory of the origin of species. In R. Creath & J. Maienschein (Eds.), Biology and epistemology (pp. 3–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaffner, K. (1993). Discovery and explanation in biology and medicine. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleiden, M. J. (1842). Grundzüge der wissenschaftlichen Botanik nebst einer methodologischen Einleitung als Anleitung zum Studium der Pflanze. Part 1. Leipzig: Engelmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleiden, M. J. (1843 [1844]). Schelling’s und Hegel’s Verhältnis zur Naturwissenschaft. Neue Jenaische Literaturzeitung (pp. 197–264). May 1843, separate edition. Leipzig: Engelmann. Reprinted in Charpa (1989).

  • Schleiden, M. J. (1847). Einige Blicke auf die Entwicklungsgeschichte des vegetablischen Organismus bei den Phanerogamen. Wiegmann’s Archiv für Naturgeschichte, 3, 289–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleiden, M. J. (1848a). Die Pflanze und ihr Leben. Populäre Vorträge. Leipzig: Engelmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleiden, M. J. (1848b). The plant: A biography (trans: A. Henfrey). London: Baillière.

  • Schleiden, M. J. (1849). Principles of scientific botany; Or, botany as an inductive science (trans E. Lankester). London: Hardwicke.

  • Schleiden, M. J. (1860). Ueber die Einheit des Menschengeschlechts. Westermann’s Jahrbuch der Illustrirten Deutschen Montshefte (Vol. 8, pp. 68–83). Braunschweig: Westermann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleiden, M. J. (1863). Das Alter des Menschengeschlechts, die Entstehung der Arten und die Stellung des Menschen in der Natur. Leipzig: Engelmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleiden, M. J. (1865). Das Meer. Berlin: A. Sacco Nachfolger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleiden, M. J. (1869). Ueber den Darwinismus und die damit zusamenhängenden Lehren. Unsere Zeit. Deutsche Revue der Gegenwart (Neue Folge), 5, 50–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleiden, M. (1989). See Charpa (1989).

  • Scholz, M. (2003). Matthias Jacob Schleiden in Tartu (Dorpat) 1863–1864. Essen: Blaue Eule.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweber, S. (1985). The wider British context in Darwin’s theorizing. In D. Kohn (Ed.), The Darwinian heritage (pp. 35–69). Princeton: Princeton University Press and Nova Pacifica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P. (1997). Collaborative knowledge. Noûs, 31, 242–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uschmann, G. (1954). Ernst Haeckel—Forscher, Künstler, Mensch. Briefe (3rd ed.). Jena/Berlin: Urania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whewell, W. (1837). History of the inductive sciences, from the earliest to the present time (Vol. 3). London: Parker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whewell, W. (1840). Geschichte der inductiven Wissenschaften (Vol. 3) (trans J. J. von Littrow). Stuttgart: Hoffmann.

  • Whewell, W. (1967). See Buchdahl & Laudan (1967).

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank the editors of this special supplement and three anonymous referees, in one case mixed with a true sense of indebtedness because he found the paper rather reader-unfriendly.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leo Baeck Institute London, 4 Devonshire St, London, W5 LB, UK

    Ulrich Charpa

Authors
  1. Ulrich Charpa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulrich Charpa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Charpa, U. Darwin, Schleiden, Whewell, and the “London Doctors”: Evolutionism and Microscopical Research in the Nineteenth Century. J Gen Philos Sci 41, 61–84 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-010-9118-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-010-9118-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation