Axiomatic Natural Philosophy and the Emergence of Biology as a Science

Journal of the History of Biology 53 (3):379-422 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Ernst Mayr argued that the emergence of biology as a special science in the early nineteenth century was possible due to the demise of the mathematical model of science and its insistence on demonstrative knowledge. More recently, John Zammito has claimed that the rise of biology as a special science was due to a distinctive experimental, anti-metaphysical, anti-mathematical, and anti-rationalist strand of thought coming from outside of Germany. In this paper we argue that this narrative neglects the important role played by the mathematical and axiomatic model of science in the emergence of biology as a special science. We show that several major actors involved in the emergence of biology as a science in Germany were working with an axiomatic conception of science that goes back at least to Aristotle and was popular in mid-eighteenth-century German academic circles due to its endorsement by Christian Wolff. More specifically, we show that at least two major contributors to the emergence of biology in Germany—Caspar Friedrich Wolff and Gottfried Reinhold Treviranus—sought to provide a conception of the new science of life that satisfies the criteria of a traditional axiomatic ideal of science. Both C.F. Wolff and Treviranus took over strong commitments to the axiomatic model of science from major philosophers of their time, Christian Wolff and Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, respectively. The ideal of biology as an axiomatic science with specific biological fundamental concepts and principles thus played a role in the emergence of biology as a special science.

Similar books and articles

Reflections on Ernst Mayr's this is biology.John C. Greene - 1999 - Biology and Philosophy 14 (1):103-116.
Kant and the scope of analogy in the life sciences.Hein van den Berg - 2018 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 71:67-76.
Biology and epistemology.Richard Creath & Jane Maienschein (eds.) - 2000 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
The Wolffian roots of Kant’s teleology.Hein van den Berg - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (4):724-734.
Whence Philosophy of Biology?Jason M. Byron - 2007 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58 (3):409-422.
Is biology a provincial science?Ronald Munson - 1975 - Philosophy of Science 42 (4):428-447.
The Structure of Biological Science.Alexander Rosenberg - 1985 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Microdeterminism and concepts of emergence.Robert L. Klee - 1984 - Philosophy of Science 51 (March):44-63.


Added to PP

323 (#59,958)

6 months
162 (#17,649)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Hein Van Den Berg
University of Amsterdam
Boris Demarest
University of Amsterdam

Citations of this work

Kant's Theory of Scientific Hypotheses in its Historical Context.Boris Demarest & Hein van den Berg - 2022 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 92:12-19.
Theoretical virtues in eighteenth-century debates on animal cognition.Hein van den Berg - 2020 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 42 (3):1-35.
Induction and Certainty in the Physics of Wolff and Crusius.Hein van den Berg & Boris Demarest - forthcoming - British Journal for the History of Philosophy:1-22.
The Essentialism of Early Modern Psychiatric Nosology.Hein van den Berg - 2023 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 45 (2):1-25.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Critique of Pure Reason.I. Kant - 1787/1998 - Philosophy 59 (230):555-557.
Kant and the exact sciences.Michael Friedman - 1992 - Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

View all 82 references / Add more references