Skip to main content
Log in

Philosophical ideas and scientific practice: A note on the empiricism of T.H. Morgan

  • Discussions
  • Published:
Biology and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

In a reply to Marga Vicedo the philosophical inconsistency of Morgan is emphasized. It is argued that even if a strict classification of scientists according to their philosophical position is not possible, their science may still be influenced by their philosophical ideas. Finally it is suggested that philosophical ideas influence science less by a direct effect on the scientists than indirectly through science policy and administration.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, G.: 1966, ‘Thomas Hunt Morgan and the Problem of Sex Determination’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 110, 48–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, G.: 1978, Thomas Hunt Morgan and His Science, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, A.L.: 1976, ‘Edmund B. Wison as a Preformationist: Some Reasons for His Acceptance of the Chromosome Theory’, Journal of the History of Biology 9, 29–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, W.: 1970, ‘Bateson and Chromosomes: Conservative Thought in Science’, Centaurus 15, 228–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P.: 1990, ‘The Division of Cognitive Labour’, The Journal of Philosophy 18, 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manier, E.: 1967, ‘The Experimental Method in Biology. T.H. Morgan and the Theory of the Gene’, Synthese 20, 185–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E.: 1982, The Growth of Biological Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, T.H.: 1926, The Theory of the Gene, Yale University Press, New Haven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, T.H.: 1935, ‘The Relation of Genetics to Physiology and Medicine’, The Scientific Monthly, July, 5–18.

  • Morgan, T.H., A.H. Sturtevant, H.J. Muller and C.B. Bridges: 1915, The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity, Henry Holt and Company, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, H.J.: 1934, ‘Lenin's Doctrines in Relation to Genetics’, in To the Memory of V.I. Lenin (Moscow, 1934); reprinted as appendix to L.C. Graham, Science and Philosophy in the Soviet Union (New York: Knopf, 1972), pp.453–469.

  • Norton, B.: 1975, ‘Biology and Philosophy: The Methodological Foundations of Biometry’, Journal of the History of Biology 8, 85–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravin, A. W.: 1977, ‘The Gene as Catalyst; The Gene as Organism’, Studies in History of Biology 1, 1–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roll-Hansen, N.: 1978, ‘Drosophila Genetics: A Reductionist Research Program’, Journal of the History of Biology 11, 159–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roll-Hansen, N.: 1989a, ‘The Crucial Experiment of Wilhelm Johannssen’, Biology and Philosophy 4, 303–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roll-Hansen, N.: 1989b, ‘The Practice Criterion and the Rise of Lysenkoism’, Science Studies 2, 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vicedo, M.: 1990, ‘T.H. Morgan, Neither an Epistemological Empiricist nor a “Methodological” Empiricist’, Biology and Philosophy 5, 293–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodger, J.H.: 1929, Biological Principles. A Critical Study, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. (References to 1967 reissue).

    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. Philosophical ideas and scientific practice: A note on the empiricism of T.H. Morgan. Biol Philos 7, 69–76 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00130165

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00130165

Key words

Navigation