Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T13:23:37.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Logical Skeleton of Darwin's Historical Methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Mary B. Williams
Mary B. Williams*
Affiliation:
University of Delaware
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

An apparently peculiar form of explanation is found in evolutionary biology (and other historical fields); it is called a genetic explanation by Beckner (1959) (and, in a more general discussion, by Hempel (1965)), a narrative explanation by Goudge (1961), and a Darwinian history by Kitcher (1985). Kitcher, assuming that the Darwinian history has some kind of logically respectable structure, is primarily concerned with arguing that it is the cornerstone of Darwin’s historical methodology; Beckner and Goudge, on the other hand, assuming that the genetic (or narrative) explanation is an important part of evolutionary biology, are primarily concerned with the difficulty of fitting this form of explanation into a logically respectable structure. Adopting the narrative explanation terminology, and assuming that the narrative explanation is central to Darwin’s historical methodology and to the methodology of contemporary evolutionary biology, I will in this paper delineate its logically respectable structure.

Type
Part VIII. Biology
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1986 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1986 , 1986 , pp. 514 - 521
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beckner, Morton. (1959). The Biological Way of Thought. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borrowsky, Betty. (1979). “The Early Bird.” American Scientist 67: 263–264.Google Scholar
Goudge, T.A. (1961). The Ascent of Life. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Hull, David L (1975). “Central Subjects and Historical Narratives.” History and Theory 3: 253–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. (1985). “Darwin’s Achievement.” In Reason and Rationality in Natural Science. Edited by N, Rescher. Lanthan, MD: University Press of America, Inc. Pages 127-190.Google Scholar
Koopmans, Henry. (1979). “The Early Bird.” American Scientist 67: 262.Google Scholar
Lackey, J.A. (1979). “The Early Bird.” American Scientist 67: 262–263.Google Scholar
Ostrom, John H. (1974). “Archaeopteryx and the Origin of Flight.” Quarterly Review of Biology 49: 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, John H. (1979). “The Early Bird.” American Scientist 67: 264.Google Scholar
Romer, A.S. (1941). Man and the Vertebrates. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Romer, A.S. (1955). The Vertebrate Body. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Mary B. (1970). “Deducing the Consequences of Evolution: A Mathematical Model.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 29: 343–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar