Advertisement

Journal of the History of Biology

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 243–292 | Cite as

Rethinking Woodger’s Legacy in the Philosophy of Biology

  • Daniel J. Nicholson
  • Richard Gawne
Article

Abstract

The writings of Joseph Henry Woodger (1894–1981) are often taken to exemplify everything that was wrongheaded, misguided, and just plain wrong with early twentieth-century philosophy of biology. Over the years, commentators have said of Woodger: (a) that he was a fervent logical empiricist who tried to impose the explanatory gold standards of physics onto biology, (b) that his philosophical work was completely disconnected from biological science, (c) that he possessed no scientific or philosophical credentials, and (d) that his work was disparaged – if not altogether ignored – by the biologists and philosophers of his era. In this paper, we provide the first systematic examination of Woodger’s oeuvre, and use it to demonstrate that the four preceding claims are false. We argue that Woodger’s ideas have exerted an important influence on biology and philosophy, and submit that the current consensus on his legacy stems from a highly selective reading of his works. By rehabilitating Woodger, we hope to show that there is no good reason to continue to disregard the numerous contributions to the philosophy of biology produced in the decades prior to the professionalization of the discipline.

Keywords

J. H. Woodger History of philosophy of biology Logical empiricism Axiomatization Bauplan Organicism A. N. Whitehead Theoretical Biology Club 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abir-Am, P.G. 1987. “The Biotheoretical Gathering, Transdisciplinary Authority and the Incipient Legitimation of Molecular Biology in the 1930s: New Perspective on the Historical Sociology of Science.” History of Science 25: 1–70.Google Scholar
  2. —— 1991. “The Philosophical Background of Joseph Needham’s Work in Chemical Embryology.” S.F. Gilbert (ed.), Developmental Biology: A Comprehensive Synthesis, Vol. 7: A Conceptual History of Modern Embryology. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 159–180.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, E.S. 1938. “Review of ‘The Axiomatic Method in Biology’ by J. H. Woodger.” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 44(11): 763–764.Google Scholar
  4. Anon., 1925. “Review of ‘Elementary Morphology and Physiology (First Edition)’ by J. H. Woodger.” The Lancet 205 (5306): 978.Google Scholar
  5. —— 1929. “Review of ‘Biological Principles’ by J. H. Woodger.” Nature 124 (3137): 909.Google Scholar
  6. —— 1936. “Review of ‘Elementary Morphology and Physiology (Second Edition)’ by J. H. Woodger.” The Lancet 227 (5865): 203–204.Google Scholar
  7. —— 1944. “Review of ‘Elementary Morphology and Physiology (Third Edition)’ by J. H. Woodger.” The Lancet 243 (6292): 436.Google Scholar
  8. —— 1960. “Biology at Middlesex Hospital Medical School: Prof J. H. Woodger.” Nature 185 (4706): 75.Google Scholar
  9. Appel, T.A. 1987. The Cuvier–Geoffroy Debate: French Biology in the Decades Before Darwin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. A. K. 1930. “Aspects of Modern Biology.” The British Medical Journal 2 (3647): 911–912.Google Scholar
  11. Beckner, M. 1959. The Biological Way of Thought. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bertalanffy, L.v. 1933. Modern Theories of Development: An Introduction to Theoretical Biology (J.H. Woodger, trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bertalanffy, L.v. 1941. “Die organismische Auffassung und ihre Auswirkungen.” Biologie 10 (247–258): 337–345.Google Scholar
  14. —— 1952. Problems of Life: An Evaluation of Modern Biological and Scientific Thought. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
  15. Boniolo, G., D’Agostino, M., and Di Fiore, P.P. 2010. “Zsyntax: A Formal Language for Molecular Biology with Projected Applications in Text Mining and Biological Prediction.” PLoS One 5 (3): e9511.Google Scholar
  16. Braithwaite, R.B. 1941. “Review of ‘The Technique of Theory Construction’ by J. H. Woodger.” Philosophy 16 (64): 419.Google Scholar
  17. Brandon, R.N. 1996. Concepts and Methods in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Broad, C.D. 1923. Scientific Thought. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar
  19. —— 1925. The Mind and Its Place in Nature. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar
  20. Byron, J. 2007. “Whence Philosophy of Biology?” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58: 409–422.Google Scholar
  21. Cain, J. 2000. “Woodger, Positivism and the Evolutionary Synthesis.” Biology and Philosophy 15 (4): 535–551.Google Scholar
  22. —— 2005. “Joseph Henry Woodger (1894–1981) Papers at University College London.” The Mendel Newsletter, New Series 14: 7–8.Google Scholar
  23. Callebaut, W. 1993. Taking the Naturalistic Turn or How Real Philosophy of Science is Done. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. —— 2005. “Again, What the Philosophy of Biology is Not.” Acta Biotheoretica 53: 93–122.Google Scholar
  25. Cohen, L.J. 1958. “Review of ‘Physics, Psychology, and Medicine’ by J. H. Woodger.” The Philosophical Quarterly 8 (30): 87–88.Google Scholar
  26. Dawkins, R. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. de Beer, G.R., and Woodger, J.H. 1930. “The Early Development of the Skull of the Rabbit.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 218: 373–414.Google Scholar
  28. Dunlop, W.R. 1944. “Organization.” Philosophy of Science 11 (3): 171–177.Google Scholar
  29. Dupré, J. 1993. The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. —— 2011. Processes of Life: Essays in the Philosophy of Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. E. N. 1940. “Review of ‘The Technique of Theory Construction’ by J. H. Woodger.” Journal of Philosophy 37 (1): 21–22.Google Scholar
  32. Fitch, F.B. 1938. “Review of ‘The Axiomatic Method in Biology’ by J. H. Woodger.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 3 (1): 42–43.Google Scholar
  33. Floyd, W.H., and Harris, F.T.C. 1964. “Joseph Henry Woodger, Curriculum Vitae.” J.R. Gregg and F.T.C. Harris (eds.) Form and Strategy in Science: Studies Dedicated to Joseph Henry Woodger on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  34. Fodor, J. 1974. “Special Sciences: The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis.” Synthese 28: 97–115.Google Scholar
  35. Gatenby, J.B., and Woodger, J.H. 1920. “On the Relationship Between the Formation of Yolk and Mitochondria and Golgi Apparatus During Orthogenesis.” Journal of the Royal Microscopical Society: 129–156.Google Scholar
  36. —— 1921. “On the Origin of the Golgi Apparatus on the Middle-Piece of the Ripe Sperm of Cavia.” Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science 65: 265–291.Google Scholar
  37. Gould, S.J. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Gregg, J.R. 1953. “Review of ‘Biology and Language’ by J. H. Woodger.” The Quarterly Review of Biology 28 (3): 277–279.Google Scholar
  39. —— 1954. The Language of Taxonomy: An Application of Symbolic Logic to the Study of Classificatory Systems. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Gregg, J.R., and Harris, F.T.C. 1964. Form and Strategy in Science: Studies Dedicated to Joseph Henry Woodger on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  41. Grene, M. 1968. Approaches to a Philosophical Biology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  42. —— 1974. The Understanding of Nature: Essays in the Philosophy of Biology. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  43. Grene, M., and Depew, D. 2004. The Philosophy of Biology: An Episodic History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Haldane, J.S. 1931. The Philosophical Basis of Biology. London: Hodder and Stoughton Ltd.Google Scholar
  45. Haldane, J.B.S. 1938. “Review of ‘The Axiomatic Method in Biology’ by J. H. Woodger.” Nature 141 (3563): 265–266.Google Scholar
  46. —— 1955. “A Logical Basis for Genetics?” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 6 (23): 245–248.Google Scholar
  47. Hall, B.K. 1999. Evolutionary Developmental Biology, 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  48. Haraway, D.J. 1976. Crystals, Fabrics, and Fields: Metaphors of Organicism in Twentieth-Century Developmental Biology. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Hempel, C.G. 1966. Philosophy of Natural Science. London: Prentice-Hall International, Inc.Google Scholar
  50. Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics (D. Davis and R. Zanger, trans.). Chicago: University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
  51. H. L. 1944. “Review of ‘Elementary Morphology and Physiology for Medical Students’ by J. H. Woodger.” Nature 153 (3893): 697.Google Scholar
  52. Hochberg, H. 1957. “Review of ‘Physics, Psychology, and Medicine’ by J. H. Woodger.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 17 (4): 565–566.Google Scholar
  53. Hull, C.L., Hovland, C.I., Ross, R.T., Hall, M., Perkins, D.T., and Fitch, F.B. 1940. Mathematico-Deductive Theory of Rote Learning: A Study in Scientific Methodology. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Hull, D.L. 1974. Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  55. —— 1988. Science as Process. An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  56. —— 1994. “Ernst Mayr’s Influence on the History and Philosophy of Biology: A Personal Memoir.” Biology & Philosophy 9 (3): 375–386.Google Scholar
  57. —— 2000. “The Professionalization of Science Studies: Cutting Some Slack.” Biology and Philosophy 15: 61–91.Google Scholar
  58. Hull, D.L., and Ruse, M. 2007. The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Jardine, N. 1967. “The Concept of Homology in Biology.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 18 (2): 125–139.Google Scholar
  60. —— 1969. “A Logical Basis for Biological Classification.” Systematic Zoology 18 (1): 37–52.Google Scholar
  61. Kapp, R.O. 1957. “Review of ‘Physics, Psychology, and Medicine’ by J. H. Woodger.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 8 (29): 67–70.Google Scholar
  62. Kauffman, S. 2000. Investigations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Keller, E.F. 2000. The Century of the Gene. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Kitcher, P. 2003. In Mendel’s Mirror: Philosophical Reflections on Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Kneale, W. 1966. “Review of ‘Form and Strategy in Science’ by J. R. Gregg & F. T. C. Harris.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 17 (2): 160–162.Google Scholar
  66. Lewontin, R.C. 1983. “The Organism as the Subject and Object in Evolution.” Scientia 118: 65–82.Google Scholar
  67. —— 1996. “Biology as Engineering.” J. Collado, B. Magasanik, and T.F. Smith (eds.), Integrative Approaches to Molecular Biology. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
  68. —— 2000. The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Lloyd Morgan, C. 1923. Emergent Evolution. London: Williams and Norgate.Google Scholar
  70. Mainx, F. 1955. Foundations of Biology (J.H. Woodger, trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  71. Martin, R.M. 1954. “On Woodger’s Analysis of Biological Language.” The Review of Metaphysics 8 (2): 325–333.Google Scholar
  72. Matthen, M., and Stephens, C. 2007. Philosophy of Biology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  73. Mayr, E. 1961. “Cause and Effect in Biology.” Science, New Series 134 (3489): 1501–1506.Google Scholar
  74. —— 1969. “Footnotes on the Philosophy of Biology.” Philosophy of Science 36 (2): 197–202.Google Scholar
  75. McLaughlin, P. 2001. What Functions Explain: Functional Explanation and Self-Reproducing Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Medawar, P.B., and Medawar, J.S. 1983. Aristotle to Zoos: A Philosophical Dictionary. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Miller, G.A. 1955. “Review of ‘Biology and Language’ by J. H. Woodger.” American Journal of Psychology 68 (1): 157–159.Google Scholar
  78. Mills, C.W. 1940. “Review of ‘The Technique of Theory Construction’ by J. H. Woodger.” American Sociological Review 5 (5): 807–808.Google Scholar
  79. Morange, M. 2001. The Misunderstood Gene. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Moss, L. 1992. “A Kernel of Truth? On the Reality of the Genetic Program.” PSA 1992: Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 335–348.Google Scholar
  81. Mossio, M., Saborido, C., and Moreno, A. 2009. “An Organizational Account of Biological Functions.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60: 813–841.Google Scholar
  82. Muncie, W. 1957. “Review of ‘Physics, Psychology, and Medicine’ by J. H. Woodger.” The Quarterly Review of Biology 32 (2): 206–207.Google Scholar
  83. Nagel, E. 1957. “Review of ‘Physics, Psychology, and Medicine’ by J. H. Woodger.” Science 125 (3241): 237–238.Google Scholar
  84. —— 1961. The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  85. Needham, J. 1928a. “Recent Developments in the Philosophy of Biology.” The Quarterly Review of Biology 3: 77–91.Google Scholar
  86. —— 1928b. “Organicism in Biology.” Journal of Philosophical Studies 3: 29–40.Google Scholar
  87. —— 1930. “Review of ‘Biological Principles’ by J. H. Woodger.” Mind 39 (154): 221–226.Google Scholar
  88. —— 1953. “Review of ‘Problems of Life’ by L. v. Bertalanffy.” Nature 172 (4390): 1119.Google Scholar
  89. Neurath, O. 1983. “Individual Sciences, Unified Science, Pseudo-Rationalism.” R.S. Cohen and M. Neurath (eds. & trans.) Otto Neurath: Philosophical Papers 19131946. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company, pp. 132–138.Google Scholar
  90. Nicholson, D.J. 2010a. Organism and Mechanism: A Critique of Mechanistic Thinking in Biology. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Exeter.Google Scholar
  91. —— 2010b. “Biological Atomism and Cell Theory.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 41: 202–211.Google Scholar
  92. —— 2012. “The Concept of Mechanism in Biology.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43: 152–163.Google Scholar
  93. —— In press. “Organisms ≠ Machines.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences.Google Scholar
  94. Nijhout, H.F. 1990. “Metaphors and the Role of Genes in Development.” BioEssays 12: 441–446.Google Scholar
  95. Oppenheim, P., and Putnam, H. 1958. “Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis.” H. Feigl, M. Scriven, and G. Maxwell (eds.) Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 2. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 3–36.Google Scholar
  96. Oyama, S. 2000. The Ontogeny of Information: Developmental Systems and Evolution, 2nd ed. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Oyama, S., Griffiths, P.E., and Gray, R.D. 2001. Cycles of Contingency: Developmental Systems and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  98. Peterson, E.L. 2010. Finding Mind, Form, Organism, and Person in a Reductionist Age: The Challenge of Gregory Bateson and C. H. Waddington to Biological and Anthropological Orthodoxy, 19241980. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  99. Popper, K.R. 1981. “Obituary: Joseph Henry Woodger.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 32 (3): 328–330.Google Scholar
  100. Potochnik, A. 2011. “A Neurathian Conception of the Unity of Science.” Erkenntnis 74: 305–319.Google Scholar
  101. Pouvreau, D. 2009. The Dialectical Tragedy of the Concept of Wholeness: Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s Biography Revisited (E. Schober, trans.). New York: Isce Publishing.Google Scholar
  102. Raff, R.A. 1996. The Shape of Life: Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  103. Rashevsky, N. 1963. “The Devious Roads of Science.” Synthese 15 (1): 107–114.Google Scholar
  104. Rasskin-Gutman, D. 2003. “Boundary Constraints for the Emergence of Form.” G.B. Müller and S.A. Newman (eds.) Origination of Organismal Form: Beyond the Gene in Developmental and Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 305–322.Google Scholar
  105. Reisch, G.A. 2005. How the Cold War Transformed Philosophy of Science: To the Icy Slopes of Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  106. Riedl, R. 1978. Order in Living Systems: A Systems Analysis of Evolution. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  107. Rieppel, O. 2003. “Semaphoronts, Cladograms and the Roots of Total Evidence.” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 80: 167–186.Google Scholar
  108. —— 2006. “‘Type’ in Morphology and Phylogeny.” Journal of Morphology 267: 528–535.Google Scholar
  109. Rizzotti, M., and Zanardo, A. 1986. “Axiomatization of Genetics: 1. Biological Meaning.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 118: 61–71.Google Scholar
  110. Robert, J.S. 2004. Embryology, Epigenesis, and Evolution: Taking Development Seriously. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  111. Roll-Hansen, N. 1984. “E. S. Russell and J. H. Woodger: The Failure of Two Twentieth-Century Opponents of Mechanistic Biology.” Journal of the History of Biology 17 (3): 399–428.Google Scholar
  112. Rosenberg, A. 1985. The Structure of Biological Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  113. —— 1994. Instrumental Biology or the Disunity of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  114. Rosinger, K.E. 1938. “Review of ‘The Axiomatic Method in Biology’ by J. H. Woodger.” Journal of Philosophy 35 (10): 273–274.Google Scholar
  115. Ruse, M. 1973. The Philosophy of Biology. London: Hutchinson & Co.Google Scholar
  116. —— 1975. “Woodger on Genetics: A Critical Evaluation.” Acta Biotheoretica 24: 1–13.Google Scholar
  117. —— 1979. “Philosophy of Biology Today: No Grounds for Complacency.” Philosophia 8 (4): 785–796.Google Scholar
  118. —— 1984. “Review of ‘Aristotle to Zoos. A Philosophical Dictionary of Biology’ by P. B. Medawar and J. S. Medawar.” The Quarterly Review of Biology 59 (4): 453–454.Google Scholar
  119. —— 1988. Philosophy of Biology Today. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  120. —— 1997. “Review of ‘Instrumental Biology or the Disunity of Science’ by Alexander Rosenberg.” Philosophical Quarterly 47 (186): 120–122.Google Scholar
  121. —— 2000. “Booknotes 15.3.” Biology and Philosophy 15: 465–473.Google Scholar
  122. —— 2006. “Forty Years a Philosopher of Biology: Why EvoDevo Makes Me Still Excited About My Subject.” Biological Theory 1 (1): 35–37.Google Scholar
  123. —— 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  124. Russell, B.A.W. 1912. The Problems of Philosophy. London: Williams and Norgate.Google Scholar
  125. —— 1918. Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  126. —— 1921. The Analysis of Mind. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  127. Russell, E.S. 1916. Form and Function: A Contribution to the History of Animal Morphology. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  128. Russell, L.J. 1930. “Review of ‘Biological Principles’ by J. H. Woodger.” Philosophical Studies 5 (17): 124–126.Google Scholar
  129. Sarkar, S. 1996. Logical Empiricism and the Special Sciences: Reichenbach, Feigl, and Nagel. New York: Garland Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
  130. Schaffner, K.F. 1967. “Approaches to Reduction.” Philosophy of Science 34 (2): 137–147.Google Scholar
  131. —— 1969a. “Theories and Explanations in Biology.” Journal of the History of Biology 2 (1): 19–33.Google Scholar
  132. —— 1969b. “The Watson–Crick Model and Reductionism.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 20 (4): 325–348.Google Scholar
  133. Sheldon, W.H. 1931. “Review of ‘Biological Principles’ by J. H. Woodger.” Journal of Philosophy 28 (14): 381–384.Google Scholar
  134. Smart, J.J.C. 1963. Philosophy and Scientific Realism. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  135. Smocovitis, V.B. 1992. “Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology.” Journal of the History of Biology 25 (1): 1–65.Google Scholar
  136. Smocovitis, V.B. 1996. Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  137. Sober, E. 1984. The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  138. Stebbing, T. 2011. A Cybernetic View of Biological Growth: The Maia Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  139. Strauss, M. 1940. “Review of ‘The Technique of Theory Construction’ and ‘The Axiomatic Method in Biology’ by J. H. Woodger.” Journal of Unified Science (Erkenntnis) 8 (5/6): 372–377.Google Scholar
  140. Takacs, P., and Ruse, M. 2011. “The Current Status of the Philosophy of Biology.” Science & Education 22: 5–48.Google Scholar
  141. Tarski, A. 1956. Logic, Semantics, Meta-Mathematics: Papers Published Between 19231938 (J. H. Woodger, trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  142. Thompson, P. 1989. The Structure of Biological Theories. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  143. Thompson, E.W. 2007. Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  144. Toepfer, G. 2012. “Teleology and Its Constitutive Role for Biology as the Science of Organized Systems in Nature.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43: 113–119.Google Scholar
  145. Trewavas, A. 2006. “A Brief History of Systems Biology.” The Plant Cell 18 (10): 2420–2430.Google Scholar
  146. Uexküll, J.v. 1926. Theoretical Biology (D.L. Mackinnon, trans.). London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
  147. Uytman, J.D. 1958. “Review of ‘Physics, Psychology, and Medicine’ by J. H. Woodger.” The Philosophical Quarterly 8 (30): 88–89.Google Scholar
  148. Verworn, M. 1899. General Physiology: An Outline of the Science of Life (F.S. Lee, trans.). London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
  149. Waddington, C.H. 1938. “Review of ‘The Axiomatic Method in Biology.” The Mathematical Gazette 22 (249): 192–193.Google Scholar
  150. Weber, A., and Varela, F.J. 2002. “Life After Kant: Natural Purposes and the Autopoietic Foundations of Biological Individuality.” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 1: 97–125.Google Scholar
  151. Webster, G., and Goodwin, B.C. 1982. “The Origin of Species: A Structuralist Approach.” Journal of Social and Biological Structures 5: 15–47.Google Scholar
  152. Whitehead, A.N. 1919. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Natural Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  153. —— 1920. The Concept of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  154. —— 1922. The Principle of Relativity with Applications to Physical Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  155. —— 1925. Science and the Modern World. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
  156. Whitehead, A.N., and Russell, B. 1910. Principia Mathematica, Vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  157. —— 1912. Principia Mathematica, Vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  158. —— 1913. Principia Mathematica, Vol. III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  159. Wiggins, D. 1967. Identity and Spatio-Temporal Continuity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  160. —— 1980. Sameness and Substance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  161. Williams, M.B. 1970. “Deducing the Consequences of Evolution: A Mathematical Model.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 29: 343–385.Google Scholar
  162. Wilson, E.B. 1925. The Cell in Development and Inheritance, 3rd ed. New York: The MacMillan Company.Google Scholar
  163. Wimsatt, W.C. 1972a. “Teleology and the Logical Structure of Function Statements.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 3 (1): 1–80.Google Scholar
  164. —— 1972b. “Complexity and Organization.” PSA 1972: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 67–86.Google Scholar
  165. —— 1974. “Reductive Explanation: A Functional Account.” PSA 1974: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 671–710.Google Scholar
  166. Wisdom, J.O. 1954. “Review of ‘Biology and Language’ by J. H. Woodger.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 4 (16): 339–344.Google Scholar
  167. Withers, R.F.J. 1961. “Review of ‘The Biological Way of Thought’ by M. Beckner.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 12 (46): 167–170.Google Scholar
  168. Wohlstetter, A. 1940. “Review of ‘The Technique of Theory Construction’ by J. H. Woodger.” Journal for Symbolic Logic 5 (1): 23–24.Google Scholar
  169. Wolters, G. 1999. “Wrongful Life: Logico-Empiricist Philosophy of Biology.” M.C. Galavotti and A. Pagnini (eds.) Experience, Reality, and Scientific Explanation: Essays in Honor of Merrilee and Wesley Salmon. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 187–208.Google Scholar
  170. Woodger, J.H. 1921. “Notes on a Cestode Occurring in the Haemocoele of Houseflies in Mesopotamia.” Annals of Applied Biology 7: 345–351.Google Scholar
  171. —— 1924. Elementary Morphology and Physiology for Medical Students: A Guide for the First Year and Stepping-Stone to the Second. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  172. —— 1925. “Observations of the Germ-Cells of the Fowl, Studied by Means of Their Golgi Bodies.” Quarterly Journal of the Microscopical Science 69: 445–462.Google Scholar
  173. —— 1928. “Science and Metaphysics in Biology.” Science Progress 23: 303–339.Google Scholar
  174. —— 1929a. Biological Principles: A Critical Study. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar
  175. —— 1929b. “Some Aspects of Biological Methodology.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series 29: 351–358.Google Scholar
  176. —— 1930a. “The ‘Concept of Organism’ and the Relation Between Embryology and Genetics, Part I.” The Quarterly Review of Biology 5 (1): 1–22.Google Scholar
  177. —— 1930b. “The ‘Concept of Organism’ and the Relation Between Embryology and Genetics, Part II.” The Quarterly Review of Biology 5 (4): 438–465.Google Scholar
  178. —— 1931a. “The ‘Concept of Organism’ and the Relation Between Embryology and Genetics, Part III.” The Quarterly Review of Biology 6 (2): 178–207.Google Scholar
  179. —— 1931b. “The Relation Between Descriptive and Experimental Embryology.” Science Progress 26: 306–324.Google Scholar
  180. —— 1932. “Some Apparently Unavoidable Characteristics of Natural Scientific Theory.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series 32: 95–120.Google Scholar
  181. —— 1937. The Axiomatic Method in Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  182. —— 1938. “The Formalization of a Psychological Theory.” Erkenntnis 7: 195–198.Google Scholar
  183. —— 1939. The Technique of Theory Construction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  184. —— 1940a. “Remarks on Method and Technique in Theoretical Biology.” Growth Supplement: 97–99.Google Scholar
  185. —— 1940b. “Notes on the First Symposium on Development and Growth.” Growth Supplement: 101–111.Google Scholar
  186. —— 1945. “On Biological Transformations.” W.E. Le Gros Clark and P.B. Medawar (eds.) Essays on Growth and Form, presented to D’ Arcy Wentworth Thompson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 95–120.Google Scholar
  187. —— 1948. “Observations on the Present State of Embryology.” Symposium for the Society of Experimental Embryology, Growth: 351–365.Google Scholar
  188. —— 1951. “Science Without Properties.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2 (7): 193–216.Google Scholar
  189. —— 1952a. Biology and Language: An Introduction to the Methodology of the Biological Sciences including Medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  190. —— 1952b. “From Biology to Mathematics.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 3 (9): 1–21.Google Scholar
  191. —— 1953. “What Do We Mean by ‘Inborn?’.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 3 (12): 319–326.Google Scholar
  192. —— 1955. “Mental Health and the Basic Sciences.” The Lancet 266 (6887): 419–420.Google Scholar
  193. —— 1956a. Physics, Psychology and Medicine: A Methodological Essay. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  194. —— 1956b. “A Reply to Professor Haldane.” British Journal for the Philosophy of the Science 7 (26): 149–155.Google Scholar
  195. —— 1958. “Formalization in Biology.” Loguique et Analyse, Nouvelle Serie 1: 3–4.Google Scholar
  196. —— 1959. “Studies in the Foundations of Genetics.” L. Henkin, P. Suppes, and A. Tarski (eds.) The Axiomatic Method, with Special Reference to Geometry and Physics. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, pp. 408–428.Google Scholar
  197. —— 1960. “Biology and Physics.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 11 (42): 89–100.Google Scholar
  198. —— 1961. “Taxonomy and Evolution.” La Nuova Critica 3 (12): 67–78.Google Scholar
  199. —— 1962. “Biology and the Axiomatic Method.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 96: 1093–1104.Google Scholar
  200. —— 1965. “Theorems on Random Evolution.” Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics 27: 145–150.Google Scholar
  201. —— 1968. “Many-Termed Relations in Biology.” Acta Biotheoretica 18: 1–4.Google Scholar
  202. —— 1978. Biología y Lenguaje (M. Garrido, trans.). Madrid: Tecnos.Google Scholar
  203. Woodger, J.H., & Hill, J.P. 1938. “The Origin of the Endoderm in the Sparrow.” Biomorphosis.Google Scholar
  204. Young, B.A. 1993. “On the Necessity of an Archetypal Concept in Morphology: With Special Reference to the Concepts of “Structure” and “Homology”.” Biology and Philosophy 8 (2): 225–248.Google Scholar
  205. Zanardo, A., and Rizzotti, M. 1986. “Axiomatization of Genetics: 2. Formal Development.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 118: 145–152.Google Scholar
  206. Zylstra, U. 1992. “Living Things as Hierarchically Organized Structures.” Synthese 91: 111–133.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and IdeasTel Aviv UniversityRamat Aviv, Tel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.Center for the Philosophy of BiologyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations