Abstract
I call an experiment “crucial” when it makes possible a decisive choice between conflicting hypotheses. Joharmsen's selection for size and weight within pure lines of beans played a central role in the controversy over continuity or discontinuity in hereditary change, often known as the Biometrician-Mendelian controversy. The “crucial” effect of this experiment was not an instantaneous event, but an extended process of repeating similar experiments and discussing possible objections. It took years before Johannsen's claim about the genetic stability of pure lines was accepted as conclusively demonstrated by the community of geneticists.
The paper also argues that crucial experiments thus interpreted contradict certain ideas about the underdetermination of theories by facts and the theory-ladenness of facts which have been influential in recent history and sociology of science. The acceptance of stability in the pure lines did not rest on prior preference for continuity or discontinuity. And this fact permitted a final choice between the two theories. When such choice is characterized as “decisive” or “final”, this is not meant in an absolute philosophical sense. What we achive in these cases is highly reliable empirical knowledge. The philosophical possibility of drawing (almost) any conclusion in doubt should be distinguished from reasonable doubt in empirical science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Bibliography
Balen, G. A. M. van: 1986, ‘The influence of Johannsen's discoveries on the constraint-structure of the Mendelian research program. An example of conceptual problem solving in evolutionary theory’,Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 17, 175–204.
Barnes, B. and Bloor, D.: 1982, ‘Relativism, Rationalism and the Sociology of Knowledge’, in M. Hollis and S. Lukes (eds.),Rationality and Relativism, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 21–47.
Baur, E.: 1911,Einführung in die experimentelle Vererbungslehre, Gebrüder Borntraeger, Berlin.
Campbell, D. T.: 1986, ‘Science's Social System of Validity-Enhancing Collective Belief Change and the Problems of the Social Sciences’, in D. W. Fiske and R. A. Shweder (eds.),Metatheory in Social Science: Pluralisms and Subjectivities, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 108–135.
Carlson, E. A.: 1966,The Gene; a Critical History, Saunders, Philadelphia.
Churchill, F. B.: 1974, ‘William Johannsen and the Genotype Concept’,Journal of the History of Biology 7, 5–30.
Collins, H.: 1981, ‘Stages in the empirical programme of relativism’,Social Studies of Science 11, 3–10.
Collins, H.: 1985,Changing Order, Sage, London/Beverly Hills/New Delhi.
Correns, C.: 1904, ‘Experimentelle Untersuchungen über die Entstehung der Arten auf botanischem Gebiet’,Archiv für Rassen- und Gesellschaftsbiologie 1, 27–52.
Duhem, P.: 1914,The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, Atheneum, New York, 1962. Translated from 2. ed., Paris 1914,La Théorie Physique: Son Objet, Sa Structure.
Farley, J. and Geison, G.: 1974, ‘Science, Politics and Spontaneous Generation in Nineteenth-Century France: The Pasteur-Pouchet Debate’,Bulletin of the History of Medicine 48, 161–198.
Farrall, L. A.: 1975, ‘Controversy and Conflict in Science: A Case Study — The English Biometric School and Mendel's Laws’,Social Studies of Science 5, 269–301.
Franklin, A. and H. Smokler: 1981, ‘Justification of a ‘crucial’ experiment: Parity nonconservation’,American Journal of Physics 49 (Febr. 1981), 109–112.
Galton, F.: 1889,Natural Inheritance, Macmillan, London.
Harwood, J.: 1984, ‘The Reception of Morgan's Chromosome Theory in Germany: Inter-War Debate over Cytoplasmic Inheritance’,Medizinhistorisches Journal 19, No. 1/2, 3–32.
Harwood, J.: 1985, ‘Geneticists and the Evolutionary Synthesis in Interwar Germany’,Annals of Science 42, 279–301.
Harwood, J.: 1987, ‘The Controversy over Cytoplasmic Inheritance in Interwar Germany’,Bericht der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft 100, 59–67.
Johannsen, W.: 1896,Arvelighed og Variabilitet, Det Schubotheske Forlag, Copenhagen. (Inheritance and variability.)
Johannsen, W.: 1903,Über Erblichkeit in Populationen und in reinen Linien, Gustav Fischer, Jena.
Johannsen, W.: 1903b, ‘Om Darwinismen, set fra Arvelighedslaerens Synspunkt’,Tilskueren (Copenhagen)20, 525–541.
Johannsen, W.: 1905,Arvelighedslaærens Elementer (Copenhagen).
Johannsen, W.: 1907, ‘Does Hybridization Increase Fluctuating Variability?’Report on the Third International Conference 1906 on Genetics, Spottiswood, London.
Johannsen, W.: 1908, ‘Om en herskende Tro i Udviklingslæren’,Tilskueren, 881–900.
Johannsen, W.: 1909,Elemente der exakten Erblichkeitslehre, Jena.
Johannsen, W.: 1915, ‘Experimentelle Grundlagen der Deszendenzlehre; Variabilität, Vererbung, Kreuzung, Mutation’, inKultur der Gegenwart, III, 4, vol.4, 497–660.
Johannsen, W.: 1923, “Some Remarks on Units in Heredity”,Hereditas 4, 133–141.
Johannsen, W. and Warming, E.: 1900,Den almindelige Botanik, 4th edition, Copenhagen.
Kevles, D. J.: 1980, ‘Genetics in the United States and Great Britain, 1890–1930: A Review with Speculations’,ISIS 71, 441–455.
Knorr-Cetina, K. and Mulkay, M. (eds.): 1984,Science Observed, Sage, London/Beverly Hills/New Delhi.
Laudan, L., Donovan, A., Landau, R., Barker, P., Brown, H., Leplin, J., Thagard, P., Wykstra, S.: 1986, ‘Scientific change: Philosophical models and historical research’,Synthese 69, 141–223.
MacKenzie, D.: 1981,Statistics in Britain, Edinburgh University Press.
MacKenzie, D. and Barnes, B.: 1975, ‘Biometriker versus Mendelianer, Eine Kontroverse und ihre Erklärung’,Wissenschaftssoziologie, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Special issue 18/1975, Nico Stehr and René König (eds.), 165–196.
MacKenzie, D. and Barnes, B.: 1979, ‘Scientific Judgement: Biometry - Mendelism Controversy’. In B. Barnes and S. Shapin (eds.),Natural Order, Historical Studies of Scientific Culture, Sage, Beverly Hills/London, p. 191–210.
Mayr, E.: 1973, ‘The Recent Historiography of Genetics’,Journal of the History of Biology 6, 125–154.
Mayr, E.: 1980, ‘Prologue: Some Thoughts on the History of the Evolutionary Synthesis’, in E. Mayr and W. B. Provine (eds.),The Evolutionary Synthesis, Harvard Univ. Press, 1–48.
Meijer, O. G.: 1985, ‘Hugo de Vries no Mendelian?’,Annals of Science 42, 189–232.
Nickles, T.: 1986, ‘Remarks on the use of history as evidence’,Synthese 69, 253–266.
Norton, B.: 1975a, ‘Biology and philosophy: The methodological foundations of biometry’,Journal of the History of Biology 8, 85–93.
Norton, B.: 1975b, ‘Metaphysics and Population Genetics: Karl Pearson and the Background to Fisher's Multifactorial Theory of Inheritance’,Annals of Science 32, 537–553.
Pearl, R. and Surface, F. M.: 1909, ‘Is there a Cumulative Effect of Selection? Data from the Study of Fecundity in the Domestic Fowl’,Zeitschrift für induktive Abstammungsund Vererbungslehre 2, 257–275.
Pearl, R.: 1911, ‘Biometric Ideas and Methods in Biology: Their Significance and Limitations’,“Scientia”(Rivista di Scienza)10, 101–119.
Pearson, K. (anonymously): 1909, ‘Prof. Johannsen on heredity’,Nature 69 (17 december 1903), 149–150.
Pearson, K.: 1910, ‘Darwinism, biometry and some recent biology I’.Biometrika 7, 368–385.
Pearson, K.: 1911,The Grammar of Science, Part I Physical, 3rd ed., Black, London.
Provine, W. B.: 1971,The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Quine, W. van O.: 1963, ‘Two dogmas of empiricism’.From a Logical Point of View. Harper Torch-books, New York/Evanston, pp. 20–46.
Roll-Hansen, N.: 1978, ‘The Genotype Theory of Wilhelm Johannsen and its Relation to Evolution’,Centaurus 22, 201–235.
Roll-Hansen, N.: 1983, ‘The Death of Spontaneous Generation and the Birth of the Gene: Two Case Studies of Relativism’,Social Studies of Science 13, 481–519.
Roll-Hansen, N.: 1986, ‘Svalöf and the origins of classical genetics’, in G. Olsson (eds.),Svalöf 1886–1986. Research and Results in Plant Breeding, Stockholm, 35–43.
Roll-Hansen, N.: 1988, ‘Croisement de lignées pures: de Johannsen à Nilsson-Ehle’ in actes du colloque internationalHistoire de la génétique, Pratiques, Techniques et Théories, Paris, 19–22 Mai 1987. Flammarion, Paris, to be published.
Rümker, K. von: 1889,Anleitung zur Getreidezüchtung auf wissenschaftlicher und praktischer Grundlage, Paul Parey, Berlin.
Sapp, J.: 1987,Beyond the Gene. Cytoplasmic inheritance and the struggle for authority in Genetics, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Shapin, S.: 1982, ‘History of science and its sociological reconstructions’,History of Science 20, 157–211.
Sturtevant, A. H.: 1965,A History of Genetics, Harper & Row, New York.
Turner, S.: 1986, ‘The Sociology of Science in Its Place: Comment on Shapere’,Science & Technology Studies 4, 15–18.
Vries, H. de: 1901,Die Mutationstheorie, Vol. I, Von Weit, Leipzig.
Vríes, H. de: 1906, ‘Die Svalöfer Methode zur Veredlung landwirtschaftlicher Kulturgewächse und ihre Bedeutung für die Selektions-Theorie’,Archiv für Rassen- und Gesellschaftsbiologie 3, 325–358.
Weldon, W. F. R.: 1902, ‘Professor de Vries on the Origin of Species’,Biometrika 1, 365–374.
Weldon, W. F. R. and Pearson, K.: 1903, ‘Inheritance in Phaseolus Vulgaris’,Biometrika 2, 499–503.
Wilkie, J. S.: 1962, ‘Some Reasons for the Rediscovery and Appreciation of Mendel's Work in the First Years of the Present Century’,British Journal for the History of Science 1, 5–17.
Yule, G. U.: 1903, ‘Professor Johannsen's Experiments in Heredity: A Review’,The New Phytologist 2, 235–242.
Yule, G. U.: 1904, ‘Prof. Johannsen on Heredity’,Nature 69 (7 January 1904), 223–224.
Yule, G. U.: 1907, (Discussion after Johannsen, 1907),Report on the Third International Conference 1906 on Genetics, Spottiswood, London, 112–113.
Zimstein, G.: 1976, ‘Das erste Vierteljahrhundert in der Geschichte der Mutationstheorie. Zum 75. Jahrestag der Veröffentlichung von Hugo de Vries’ Werk ‘Die Mutationstheorie’,Biologische Rundschau. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Biologie und ihre Grenzgebiete, (Jena),14, No. 3, 121–132.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Roll-Hansen, N. The crucial experiment of Wilhelm Johannsen. Biol Philos 4, 303–329 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02426630
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02426630