11 found
Order:
  1.  73
    What’s wrong with the modern evolutionary synthesis? A critical reply to Welch.Koen B. Tanghe, Alexis De Tiège, Lieven Pauwels, Stefaan Blancke & Johan Braeckman - 2018 - Biology and Philosophy 33 (3-4):23.
    Welch :263–279, 2017) has recently proposed two possible explanations for why the field of evolutionary biology is plagued by a steady stream of claims that it needs urgent reform. It is either seriously deficient and incapable of incorporating ideas that are new, relevant and plausible or it is not seriously deficient at all but is prone to attracting discontent and to the championing of ideas that are not very relevant, plausible and/or not really new. He argues for the second explanation. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  2.  14
    Interpreting the History of Evolutionary Biology through a Kuhnian Prism: Sense or Nonsense?Koen B. Tanghe, Lieven Pauwels, Alexis De Tiège & Johan Braeckman - 2021 - Perspectives on Science 29 (1):1-35.
    Traditionally, Thomas S. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) is largely identified with his analysis of the structure of scientific revolutions. Here, we contribute to a minority tradition in the Kuhn literature by interpreting the history of evolutionary biology through the prism of the entire historical developmental model of sciences that he elaborates in The Structure. This research not only reveals a certain match between this model and the history of evolutionary biology but, more importantly, also sheds new light (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3.  3
    Weismann’s Barrier and Crick’s Barrier Still Preclude Two Kinds of Lamarckism.Koen B. Tanghe - 2021 - Biosemiotics 14 (3):675-682.
    In his target article ‘The Illusions of the Modern Synthesis’, Denis Noble argues that the Modern Synthesis is undermined by the major findings of molecular biology. The supposed falsification of Weisman’s Barrier and of standard interpretations of Francis Crick’s Central Dogma has paved the way for Lamarckian forms of inheritance which are prohibited by that theory of evolution. I argue that August Weismann postulated two barriers against two kinds of Lamarckism. However, his second barrier was speculative. It was made more (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  4.  51
    The sociobiology of genes: the gene’s eye view as a unifying behavioural-ecological framework for biological evolution.Alexis De Tiège, Yves Van de Peer, Johan Braeckman & Koen B. Tanghe - 2017 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 40 (1):6.
    Although classical evolutionary theory, i.e., population genetics and the Modern Synthesis, was already implicitly ‘gene-centred’, the organism was, in practice, still generally regarded as the individual unit of which a population is composed. The gene-centred approach to evolution only reached a logical conclusion with the advent of the gene-selectionist or gene’s eye view in the 1960s and 1970s. Whereas classical evolutionary theory can only work with fitness differences between individual organisms, gene-selectionism is capable of working with fitness differences among genes (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  5.  8
    Bill Jenkins, Evolution Before Darwin. Theories of the Transmutation of Species in Edinburgh, 1804–1834.Koen B. Tanghe - 2020 - Journal of the History of Biology 53 (1):203-207.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  6.  33
    Leave Lamarck Alone! Why the Use of the Term "Lamarckism" and Its Cognates Must Be Shunned.Koen B. Tanghe - 2019 - Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 62 (1):72-94.
    Neither can we... improve a science, without improving the language or nomenclature which belongs to it.Ludwig Wittgenstein famously claimed that it was the task of scientists to investigate matters of fact, whereas philosophers merely had to clarify the meaning of terms. One could also—or more precisely—argue that philosophers should identify and remedy five kinds of possible dysfunctions in the relationship between epistemic terms and their referent: they can be meaningless, imprecise, indiscriminate, ambiguous, or inapt. One of the main reasons why (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  7.  33
    A Historical Taxonomy of Origin of Species Problems and Its Relevance to the Historiography of Evolutionary Thought.Koen B. Tanghe - 2017 - Journal of the History of Biology 50 (4):927-987.
    Historians tend to speak of the problem of the origin of species or the species question, as if it were a monolithic problem. In reality, the phrase refers to a, historically, surprisingly fluid and pluriform scientific issue. It has, in the course of the past five centuries, been used in no less than ten different ways or contexts. A clear taxonomy of these separate problems is useful or relevant in two ways. It certainly helps to disentangle confusions that have inevitably (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  8.  15
    A Historical Taxonomy of Origin of Species Problems and Its Relevance to the Historiography of Evolutionary Thought.Koen B. Tanghe - 2017 - Journal of the History of Biology 50 (4):927-987.
    Historians tend to speak of the problem of the origin of species or the species question, as if it were a monolithic problem. In reality, the phrase refers to a, historically, surprisingly fluid and pluriform scientific issue. It has, in the course of the past five centuries, been used in no less than ten different ways or contexts. A clear taxonomy of these separate problems is useful or relevant in two ways. It certainly helps to disentangle confusions that have inevitably (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  9.  23
    The Fate of William Whewell’s Four Palætiological Domains: A Comparative Study.Koen B. Tanghe - 2019 - Perspectives on Science 27 (6):810-838.
    In 1847, the British polymath William Whewell pointed out that the sciences for which he, in 1837, had coined the term “palætiological” have much in common and that they may reflect light upon each other by being treated together. This recommendation is here put into practice in a specific way, to wit, not by comparing the palaetiological sciences that Whewell distinguished himself but by comparing the general historical development of the scientific study of the four broad palætiological domains that he (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10.  4
    Michel Morange, The Black Box of Biology. A History of the Molecular Revolution. Trans. by M. Cobb (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2020), 528 pp., $45.00, £36.95, €40.50 Hardback, ISBN: 9780674281363. [REVIEW]Koen B. Tanghe - 2020 - Journal of the History of Biology 53 (3):489-492.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11.  4
    Bill Jenkins, Evolution Before Darwin. Theories of the Transmutation of Species in Edinburgh, 1804–1834: (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2019), Edinburgh, Hardback, 2019, 222 pp., £75 Cloth, ISBN: 9781474445788. [REVIEW]Koen B. Tanghe - 2020 - Journal of the History of Biology 53 (1):203-207.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark