What is wrong with typological thinking?

Philosophy of Science 76 (3):355-371 (2009)
Abstract
What, if anything, is wrong with typological thinking? The question is important, for some evolutionary developmental biologists appear to espouse a form of typology. I isolate four allegations that have been brought against it. They include the claim that typological thinking is mystical; the claim that typological thinking is at odds with the fact of evolution; the claim that typological thinking is committed to an objectionable metaphysical view, which Elliott Sober calls the ‘natural state model’; and finally the view (endorsed by Ron Amundson and Günter Wagner) that typological thinking—and specifically evolutionary developmental biology’s typological thinking—is committed to a peculiar form of causation that does not fit neatly into the causal models endorsed by population genetics. I argue that, properly understood, the typological thinking of evolutionary developmental biology does not run into any of these problems. *Received April 2008; revised August 2009. †To contact the author, please write to: Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, CB2 3RH Cambridge, United Kingdom; e‐mail: tml1000@cam.ac.uk.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1086/649810
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 27,651
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Human Nature: The Very Idea.Tim Lewens - 2012 - Philosophy and Technology 25 (4):459-474.
Species, Essence and Explanation.Tim Lewens - 2012 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43 (4):751-757.
Grene and Hull on Types and Typological Thinking in Biology.Phillip Honenberger - 2015 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 50:13-25.
Ancestor of the New Archetypal Biology: Goethe’s Dynamic Typology as a Model for Contemporary Evolutionary Developmental Biology.Mark F. Riegner - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (4):735-744.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Nomological and Typological Sciences.Wladyslaw Tatarkiewicz - 1960 - Journal of Philosophy 57 (7):234-240.
Are Biological Species Real?Hugh Lehman - 1967 - Philosophy of Science 34 (2):157-167.
Racism and Human Genome Diversity Research: The Ethical Limits of "Population Thinking".Lisa Gannett - 2001 - Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S479-.
The Normal Genome in Twentieth-Century Evolutionary Thought.L. Gannett - 2003 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 34 (1):143-185.

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2010-01-09

Total downloads

100 ( #50,694 of 2,169,366 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #186,284 of 2,169,366 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums