Skip to main content
Log in

E. S. Russell and J. H. Woodger: The failure of two twentieth-century opponents of mechanistic biology

  • Published:
Journal of the History of Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Edmund B. Wilson, The Physical Basis of Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1923), pp. 46–47.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Garland Allen, Life Science in the Twentieth Century (New York: Wiley & Sons, 1975; Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978), p. 106.

    Google Scholar 

  3. I mention this example because it was suggested to me by Allen in a private letter.

  4. Garland Allen, Life Science in the Twentieth Century New York: Wiley & Sons, 1975, pp. 105–106.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Garland Allen, Life Science in the Twentieth Century New York: Wiley & Sons, 1975, pp. 102–103.

    Google Scholar 

  6. John Parascandola, “Organismic and Holistic Concepts in the Thought of L. J. Henderson,” J. Hist. Biol., 4 (1971), 63–114.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Garland Allen, Life Science in the Twentieth Century New York: Wiley & Sons, 1975, p. 120.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Max Delbrück, “A Physicist Looks at Biology,” Trans. Conn. Acad. Arts Sci., 38 (1949), 173–190.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Among the supporters of this doctrine were the philosophers C. D. Broad, Samuel Alexander, and A. O. Lovejoy and the psychologist C. Lloyd Morgan. A thorough and critical analysis of the doctrine of emergence is given by Ernest Nagel in The Structure of Science (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1961).

    Google Scholar 

  10. C. D. Broad, The Mind and Its Place in Nature (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1925), p. 59.

    Google Scholar 

  11. C. D. Broad, The Mind and Its Place in Nature (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1925), p. 62.

    Google Scholar 

  12. C. D. Broad, The Mind and Its Place in Nature (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1925), pp. 65–66.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See Helge Kragh, “Anatomy of a Priority Conflict: The Case of Element 72,” Centaurus, 23 (1978), 275–301.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ernest Nagel in The Structure of Science (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1961), p. 371.

    Google Scholar 

  15. C. D. Broad, The Mind and Its Place in Nature (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1925), p. 66.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Theoretische Biologie, vol. 1, (Berlin: Borntraeger, 1932).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Theoretische Biologie, vol. 1, (Berlin: Borntraeger, 1932), pp. 50–51.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ludwig von Bertalanffy, The Problems of Life: An Evaluation of Modern Biological and Scientific Thought (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1960), p. 124 (1st ed. London, 1952).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ludwig von Bertalanffy, The Problems of Life: An Evaluation of Modern Biological and Scientific Thought (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1960), p. 125 (1st ed. London, 1952).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nils Roll-Hansen, “Critical Teleology: Immanuel Kant and Claude Bernard on the Limitations of Experimental Biology,” J. Hist. Biol., 9 (1976), 59–91.

    Google Scholar 

  21. J. S. Haldane, Mechanism, Life and Personality (New York: Dutton, 1923).

    Google Scholar 

  22. J. S. Haldane, Mechanism, Life and Personality (New York: Dutton, 1923). p. 58.

    Google Scholar 

  23. J. S. Haldane, Mechanism, Life and Personality (New York: Dutton, 1923)., p. 70.

    Google Scholar 

  24. J. S. Haldane, Mechanism, Life and Personality (New York: Dutton, 1923)., p. 104.

    Google Scholar 

  25. E. S. Russell, Form and Function: A Contribution to the History of Animal Morphology (London: John Murray, 1916), pp. v, 364.

    Google Scholar 

  26. E. S. Russell, Form and Function: A Contribution to the History of Animal Morphology (London: John Murray, 1916), p. 345.

    Google Scholar 

  27. E. S. Russell, The Study of Living Things: Prolegomena to a Functional Biology (London: Methuen & Co., 1924), p. ix.

    Google Scholar 

  28. E. S. Russell, The Study of Living Things: Prolegomena to a Functional Biology (London: Methuen & Co., 1924), pp. x-xi.

    Google Scholar 

  29. E. S. Russell, The Interpretation of Development and Heredity: A Study in Biological Method (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1930), p. 163.

    Google Scholar 

  30. E. S. Russell, The Interpretation of Development and Heredity: A Study in Biological Method (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1930), pp. 163–164.

    Google Scholar 

  31. E. S. Russell, The Study of Living Things: Prolegomena to a Functional Biology (London: Methuen & Co., 1924), p. 56.

    Google Scholar 

  32. E. S. Russell, The Study of Living Things: Prolegomena to a Functional Biology (London: Methuen & Co., 1924), p. 39.

    Google Scholar 

  33. E. S. Russell, The Study of Living Things: Prolegomena to a Functional Biology (London: Methuen & Co., 1924), pp. 63–64.

    Google Scholar 

  34. E. S. Russell, The Study of Living Things: Prolegomena to a Functional Biology (London: Methuen & Co., 1924), p. 91.

    Google Scholar 

  35. E. S. Russell, The Study of Living Things: Prolegomena to a Functional Biology (London: Methuen & Co., 1924), p. 95.

    Google Scholar 

  36. E. S. Russell, The Study of Living Things: Prolegomena to a Functional Biology (London: Methuen & Co., 1924), p. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  37. E. S. Russell, The Study of Living Things: Prolegomena to a Functional Biology (London: Methuen & Co., 1924), p. 118.

    Google Scholar 

  38. E. S. Russell, The Study of Living Things: Prolegomena to a Functional Biology (London: Methuen & Co., 1924), p. 128.

    Google Scholar 

  39. E. S. Russell, The Study of Living Things: Prolegomena to a Functional Biology (London: Methuen & Co., 1924), p. 132.

    Google Scholar 

  40. E. S. Russell, The Interpretation of Development and Heredity: A Study in Biological Method (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1930), pp. 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  41. E. S. Russell, The Interpretation of Development and Heredity: A Study in Biological Method (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1930), pp. 61–62.

    Google Scholar 

  42. E. S. Russell, The Interpretation of Development and Heredity: A Study in Biological Method (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1930), p. 62.

    Google Scholar 

  43. E. S. Russell, The Interpretation of Development and Heredity: A Study in Biological Method (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1930), p. 155.

    Google Scholar 

  44. E. S. Russell, The Interpretation of Development and Heredity: A Study in Biological Method (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1930), p. 307.

    Google Scholar 

  45. E. S. Russell, The Interpretation of Development and Heredity: A Study in Biological Method (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1930), p. 287.

    Google Scholar 

  46. E. S. Russell, The Interpretation of Development and Heredity: A Study in Biological Method (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1930), p. 67.

    Google Scholar 

  47. E. S. Russell, The Interpretation of Development and Heredity: A Study in Biological Method (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1930), p. 70.

    Google Scholar 

  48. E. S. Russell, The Interpretation of Development and Heredity: A Study in Biological Method (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1930), p. 75.

    Google Scholar 

  49. E. S. Russell, The Interpretation of Development and Heredity: A Study in Biological Method (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1930), p. 74n.

    Google Scholar 

  50. J. R. Gregg and F. T. C. Harris, eds., Form and Strategy in Science: Studies Dedicated to Joseph Henry Woodger on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1964), p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Donna Haraway, Crystals, Fabrics and Fields (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1976), pp. 128 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  52. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), p. 9 (reprinted New York: Humanities Press, 1967 with a new introduction).

    Google Scholar 

  53. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  54. J. H. Woodger, “Studies in the Foundation of Genetics,” in Henkin, Suppes, and Tarski, eds., The Axiomatic Method (Amsterdam, 1959).

  55. Michael Ruse, “Woodger on Genetics, a Critical Evaluation,” Acta Biotheoret., 24 (1975), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ibid., p. 2.

  57. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), p. 56. This is Woodger's quotation from Wilson, for which he gives no reference.

    Google Scholar 

  58. I have discussed Wilson's reductionism and his role in the drosophila group in an earlier paper; see Nils Roll-Hansen, “Drosophila Genetics: A Reductionist Research Program,” J. Hist. Biol., 11 (1978), 159–210.

    Google Scholar 

  59. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), p. 55.

    Google Scholar 

  60. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), p. 115.

    Google Scholar 

  61. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), pp. 57, 237, 320.

    Google Scholar 

  62. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), pp. 82–83.

    Google Scholar 

  63. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), pp. 113 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  64. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), p. 134.

    Google Scholar 

  65. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), p. 85.

    Google Scholar 

  66. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), p. 89.

    Google Scholar 

  67. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), p. 135.

    Google Scholar 

  68. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), p. 280.

    Google Scholar 

  69. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), pp. 280–281.

    Google Scholar 

  70. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), p. 370.

    Google Scholar 

  71. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), pp. 394–399, 404.

    Google Scholar 

  72. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), pp. 229–230.

    Google Scholar 

  73. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), p. 271.

    Google Scholar 

  74. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), p. 481.

    Google Scholar 

  75. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), p. 310.

    Google Scholar 

  76. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), p. 353.

    Google Scholar 

  77. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), p. 290.

    Google Scholar 

  78. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), p. 311.

    Google Scholar 

  79. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), p. 285.

    Google Scholar 

  80. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), p. 404.

    Google Scholar 

  81. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), p. 407.

    Google Scholar 

  82. See for instance Harmke Kammiga, “Studies in the History of Ideas on the Origin of Life,” Ph.D. diss., University of London, 1980.

  83. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), p. 337.

    Google Scholar 

  84. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), pp. 337–338.

    Google Scholar 

  85. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), pp. 358–361.

    Google Scholar 

  86. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. 1929), p. 410.

    Google Scholar 

  87. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), note 55 pp. 367–368. In Woodger's own words, the argument runs as follows: “Professor Morgan seems to have neglected Whitehead's maxim: ‘Seek simplicity and distrust it’. Such an hypothesis is certainly simple but if it cannot be tested experimentally (and as there are supposed to be many different genes in each chromosome it obviously cannot) it can hardly be called a good working one. The only way in which such an hypothesis can be tested is by its consilience with the rest of knowledge. Let us therefore apply this test. Now since both chemical molecules and genes are hypothetical entities with which no one claims to be directly acquainted they are only known by definition. Consequently, if the properties of the one by definition are inconsistent with the properties of the other then the two kinds of particles cannot be identified. Now a chemical molecule is by definition the smallest particle of a certain kind of stuff which can exist. If it is divided you no longer have a particle with the same properties. A molecule of water is believed to have quite different properties from a molecule or atom of either oxygen or hydrogen. Now compare this with the genes. As Professor Wilson says, they must be ‘capable of division’ since they are ‘self-perpetuating’ and nevertheless ’preserve their identity from one generation of cells to another’. We find in fact that the properties attributed to them are little short of all the fundamental properties of living things. They seem to be living organisms in miniature. At all events they are capable of division in the biological sense into two parts with similar properties. This is admitted on all hands. If it is not admitted the hypothesis breaks down. Consequently the genes cannot possibly be identified with chemical molecules as understood and defined by chemists.”

    Google Scholar 

  88. H. J. Muller, “The Gene as the Basis of Life,” reprinted in Studies in Genetics (Indiana University Press, 1962), pp. 188–204; quotation on p. 188.

  89. E. S. Russell, The Interpretation of Development and Heredity: A Study in Biological Method (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1930), p. 146.

    Google Scholar 

  90. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), p. 353.

    Google Scholar 

  91. J. H. Woodger, Biological Principles: A Critical Study (London: K. Pauk, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), p. 325.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roll-Hansen, N. E. S. Russell and J. H. Woodger: The failure of two twentieth-century opponents of mechanistic biology. J Hist Biol 17, 399–428 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00126370

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00126370

Keywords

Navigation