6 found
Order:
  1.  62
    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   3 citations  
  2.  28
    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  
  3.  44
    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)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  4.  22
    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 (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5.  3
    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  
  6.  3
    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)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark