Skip to main content

Neither logical empiricism nor vitalism, but organicism: what the philosophy of biology was

[W]henever one does decide to publish, it is necessary to reckon with the great ‘paper memory of mankind’, the conserved experience of other workers who have loved and investigated the same things. It then becomes a duty to study the ‘literature of the subject’, if only for the purpose of bringing the new work into intelligible, organic relation with the old. Failure to do this may be justly interpreted as carelessness, sloth, ignorance or conceit. — (Wheeler 1906, p. 349).

Abstract

Philosophy of biology is often said to have emerged in the last third of the twentieth century. Prior to this time, it has been alleged that the only authors who engaged philosophically with the life sciences were either logical empiricists who sought to impose the explanatory ideals of the physical sciences onto biology, or vitalists who invoked mystical agencies in an attempt to ward off the threat of physicochemical reduction. These schools paid little attention to actual biological science, and as a result philosophy of biology languished in a state of futility for much of the twentieth century. The situation, we are told, only began to change in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when a new generation of researchers began to focus on problems internal to biology, leading to the consolidation of the discipline. In this paper we challenge this widely accepted narrative of the history of philosophy of biology. We do so by arguing that the most important tradition within early twentieth-century philosophy of biology was neither logical empiricism nor vitalism, but the organicist movement that flourished between the First and Second World Wars. We show that the organicist corpus is thematically and methodologically continuous with the contemporary literature in order to discredit the view that early work in the philosophy of biology was unproductive, and we emphasize the desirability of integrating the historical and contemporary conversations into a single, unified discourse.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    This is reflected, for instance, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s main entry on the subject (Griffiths 2014), in which work completed before the last third of the twentieth century is summarily discussed under the heading ‘Pre-history of Philosophy of Biology’.

  2. 2.

    We focus on Wolters’ theses, not because we regard them as necessary and sufficient criteria for determining whether a particular individual was a logical empiricist, but because they effectively encapsulate the caricaturized view of logical empiricism that has so frequently been lambasted by modern philosophers of science. We are well aware that logical empiricism was actually a highly heterogeneous movement, and that there were probably no doctrines that were upheld by all of its members (see, e.g., Creath 2014), but this does not really matter in the present context. Our only aim here is to show that early work in the philosophy of biology does not instantiate the flaws and prejudices that have come to be associated (rightly or wrongly) with the logical empiricist program (cf. Sarkar under review).

  3. 3.

    In one of his last works, he wrote: “You, the reader, may wonder about that old-fashioned term ‘natural philosophy’ in the title of this essay. Is it not the hallmark of modern science that it got rid of obsolete philosophy? Have modern positivists—including the Vienna School where I myself started more than 40 years ago—worked in vain and am I going to reinvoke the ghosts of metaphysics? […] A slightly mischievous answer would be that science and philosophy never got rid of metaphysics and that the metaphysics of positivism is a particularly naïve and superficial one” (von Bertalanffy 1967, p. 55).

  4. 4.

    This should not be taken to imply that there is nothing of value in Mainx’s book. Our point is simply that, at the time of its publication, Mainx’s Foundations of Biology had very little impact. For a detailed analysis of the book’s contents, see Sarkar (under review).

  5. 5.

    Thankfully, systematic re-evaluations of the place of vitalism in the history of biology are beginning to appear (e.g. Reill 2005; Normandin and Wolfe 2013). For an example of how vitalism can continue to play a useful role in contemporary biological theory, see Kirschner et al. 2000.

  6. 6.

    An interesting exception is Julian Huxley, who in the preface to The Individual in the Animal Kingdom expressed his debt to Bergson: “It will easily be seen how much I owe to M. Bergson, who, whether one agrees or no with his views, has given a stimulus (most valuable gift of all) to Biology and Philosophy alike” (Huxley 1912, pp. vii–viii).

  7. 7.

    As with any historical generalization, if one looks closely enough one can find exceptions, such as James Johnstone (1914), Eugenio Rignano (1926), and L. Richmond Wheeler (1939), all of whom defended Driesch-inspired forms of vitalism.

  8. 8.

    For example, Ernest Nagel began his 1951 paper on biology by remarking that “[v]italism of the substantival type sponsored by Driesch and other biologists during the preceding and early part of the present century is now a dead issue in the philosophy of biology” (Nagel 1951, p. 327). Instead, Nagel concerned himself with what was the dominant theme at the time, namely the adequacy and applicability of the organicist conception of life. Morton Beckner, who was Nagel’s student, followed this trend in The Biological Way of Thought (1959), which presented a detailed reappraisal—and defence—of organicism. Beckner’s book also addressed other topics (such as the nature of selection, the logic of taxonomic classification, and functional analysis) that would later be picked up with a vengeance by the new generation of philosophers of biology that went on to establish the discipline in the 1970s and beyond.

  9. 9.

    Despite its importance in the historical development of modern biological thought, organicism has received surprisingly little attention from philosophers and biologists, and even from historians of science. For decades, the only detailed study of organicism available was Donna Haraway’s Crystals, Fabrics, and Fields: Metaphors of Organicism in Twentieth-Century Developmental Biology (1976), which, despite its restricted scope, remains the standard reference work on the subject. More recently, Maurizio Esposito’s Romantic Biology, 1890–1945 (2013a) has provided a far more expansive survey of the organicist movement, but the impressive breadth of this study often comes at the expense of depth, and the author’s quest to yoke organicism to the Romantic tradition in German biology—seemingly at all costs—is an unwelcome distraction. Aside from these book-length treatments, some noteworthy papers have examined aspects of the organicist movement, including Beckner (1967), Hein (1969), Abir-Am (1987, 1991), Smocovitis (1992), Gilbert and Sarkar (2000), Allen (2005), Etxeberria and Umerez (2006), Bruce (2014), and Peterson (2014).

  10. 10.

    At the beginning of his Silliman Lectures at Yale University, published as Organism and Environment as Illustrated by the Physiology of Breathing, Haldane wrote: “It has been suggested to me that if a convenient label is needed for the doctrine upheld in these lectures the word ‘organicism’ might be employed” (Haldane 1917, p. 3).

  11. 11.

    In relation to his coining of ‘organismalism’, Ritter remarked: “On behalf of this unauthorized and rather bungling word, I make no plea. […] My only concern is for the idea. If that survives and flourishes I shall be satisfied, no matter under what name it becomes known” (Ritter 1919a, pp. 28–29).

  12. 12.

    As a final note on terminology, it is worth pointing out that the term ‘holism’ is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘organicism’ in the secondary literature. We think this is unhelpful, as it does violence to the etymology of these terms, and introduces unnecessary ambiguities. The word ‘holism’ was coined by Jan Smuts in his book Holism and Evolution (1926), and the views he expounds in that volume do not correspond to those of the organicists. Smuts’ holism actually belongs to another school of thought of the same period, emergent evolutionism, which we will briefly discuss at the end of this section.

  13. 13.

    This did not mean, however, that the gene concept should be dispensed with altogether, as it could still provide a useful service as a heuristic device in the explanation of development. What was important was to realize that “[t]he gene is a word, which enables a complicated happening to be briefly denominated” (Dembowski, quoted in Russell 1930, p. 67). As Russell explained, “[s]o long as the gene is regarded as a purely hypothetical concept invented for the specific purpose of explaining certain complicated facts of inheritance, no great harm is done. But when it is treated as a real existent body all [sorts of] factitious and gratuitous complications […] tend to set in” (Russell, p. 157; see also Woodger 1929a, p. 370).

  14. 14.

    In fact, Weiss was, according to Bertalanffy, one of the first to introduce the concept of ‘system’ into biology in 1924 (Koestler and Smythies 1969, p. 47). But although Weiss developed his organicist outlook early on in his career (see Weiss 1925, 1926), in the ensuing decades he remained reticent to discuss his philosophical views in his publications, preferring instead to centre his attention on his empirical investigations (there are, of course, exceptions, such as Weiss 1940). As Weiss himself would later recount, for many years he chose to restrict his role to that of an “experimental explorer, interpreter, and integrator, for whom the ‘system’ concept remained simply a silent intellectual guide and helper in the conceptual ordering of experience” (Weiss 1977, p. 18). It was only toward the end of his career, from the 1960s onwards, that he resumed work on publically propounding his organicism (by then in the context of the burgeoning reductionistic claims of molecular biology). This is why many of his philosophical papers date from this period, despite the fact that most of the ideas that underlie them had been formulated almost half a century earlier.

  15. 15.

    The organicists took this to be a self-evident assertion. As Woodger rhetorically remarked, “Is it not a bare analytical judgment (in the Kantian sense) to say that organisms are organized? Is not organization the very back-bone of the concept [of the] organism?” (Woodger 1929a, p. 290).

  16. 16.

    In private correspondence with Woodger, Needham wrote: “Your letter made me feel what I always feel about Ludwig [von] Bertalanffy, namely, that in all probability we could come to agreement after a good verbal discussion—a feeling I never have, for instance, about E. S. Russell” (Needham to Woodger, 12th October 1929, Needham papers, Cambridge University Library).

  17. 17.

    The organicists noted, however, that not all parts belong to an organism’s hierarchy simply by virtue of being parts. Woodger made this point by distinguishing between an organism’s ‘components’ and its ‘constituents’ (Woodger 1930b, p. 457). Components are functionally defined parts of the spatial hierarchy (e.g. the nucleus is a component of a cell) whereas constituents are either parts which lie outside the hierarchical order (e.g. the extracellular matrix) or arbitrary parts taken without regard to the hierarchical order (e.g. a beef steak).

  18. 18.

    The similarity between these two thinkers was noticed by Roy Wood Sellars in his Evolutionary Naturalism, where he observed that “Haldane and Ritter, who would not call themselves vitalists, […] challenge the adequacy of physics and chemistry, as these are ordinarily understood, as means of explaining biological processes” (Sellars 1922, p. 325).

  19. 19.

    Note that the organicists’ usage of the term ‘theoretical biology’ is quite far removed from the way it is understood today, and corresponds more closely to our modern conception of philosophy of biology. This is because in the early decades of the twentieth century no clear distinction existed between ‘theoretical’ and ‘philosophical’ examinations of biology. For the organicists, the two always went together—the task of systematizing biological knowledge through an analysis of its conceptual foundations was simultaneously a theoretical and a philosophical undertaking. It was only later (particularly after the Second World War) that the term ‘theoretical biology’ lost its philosophical undertones and began to be used almost exclusively in the context of the mathematical modelling of biological processes.

  20. 20.

    There were, of course, supporters of organicism in other countries, such as France and Italy, but the intellectual movement was primarily developed by authors belonging to these three groups.

  21. 21.

    For example, Haldane's The Philosophical Basis of Biology included a supplement with detailed, and mostly favourable, reviews of Woodger’s Biological Principles and Russell’s The Interpretation of Development and Heredity. Haldane concluded his review by noting that “[t]he books of Mr. Woodger and Dr. Russell represent critical and constructive efforts to refashion biology on a more secure theoretical basis” (Haldane 1931, p. 165).

  22. 22.

    This term was later adopted by Woodger (1929a) and Bertalanffy (1930a), among others.

  23. 23.

    The eminent philosopher Ernst Cassirer was also based in Hamburg during the same period. It is perhaps not surprising, then, that he wrote a monograph partly devoted to the philosophy of biology (i.e. Cassirer 1950) in which the influence of organicist ideas is quite apparent.

  24. 24.

    For a detailed examination of American organicism, see Esposito (2013a, chaps. 5 and 6).

  25. 25.

    It is rather disconcerting that Woodger, Needham, and Bertalanffy are now remembered for their later pursuits, rather than for the instrumental role they each played in establishing an organicist philosophy of biology during the interwar years. Woodger is known—and derided—for his axiomatic work, but his incisive non-formal examinations of biology are almost never discussed (see Nicholson and Gawne 2014). Needham has become renowned for his encyclopedic multi-volume work Science and Civilisation in China, whilst his extensive philosophical writings (not to mention his scientific contributions) have been entirely forgotten. And Bertalanffy is often acclaimed as one of the founding fathers of systems theory, yet he is seldom recognized as the pioneering theoretical biologist and philosopher of biology that he was. We believe that the skewed legacy of these three authors (coupled with the unfortunate fact that Haldane’s legacy has been totally eclipsed by that of his more famous son, J. B. S. Haldane) helps explain the almost complete erasure of organicist philosophy of biology from the collective memory.

  26. 26.

    The organicists’ reaction to the views of the emergent evolutionists varied considerably. Some, like Ritter and Russell, were broadly sympathetic (Ritter and Bailey 1928, pp. 333–334; Russell 1930, p. 179). Others, like Woodger and Haldane, were mostly critical (Woodger 1929a, pp. 105–110; Haldane 1931, pp. 38–39). Needham and Bertalanffy, for their part, adopted a neutral stance (Needham 1928a, pp. 33–35; von Bertalanffy 1933, p. 52).

  27. 27.

    This congress was also attended by Ritter, Haldane, Russell, Woodger, and Needham (Ritter 1933; see also Abir-Am 1985). In fact, Needham subsequently became quite enamored with dialectical materialism, admitting in his Order and Life that “the standpoint which follows from its fundamental propositions is closely similar” to his own organicism (Needham 1936, p. 45). A few years later, Needham would write the foreword to the English translation of Marcel Prenant’s Biology and Marxism (1938).

References

  1. Abir-Am, P. G. (1985). Recasting the disciplinary order in science: A deconstruction of rhetoric on ‘biology and physics’ at two international congresses in 1931. Humanity and Society, 9, 388–427.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Abir-Am, P. G. (1991). The philosophical background of Joseph Needham’s work on chemical embryology. In S. F. Gilbert (Ed.), A conceptual history of modern embryology (pp. 159–180). New York: Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Alexander, S. (1920). Space, time, and deity. London: Macmillan & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Allen, G. E. (2005). Mechanism, vitalism and organicism in late nineteenth and twentieth-century biology: The importance of historical context. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36, 261–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Alverdes, F. (1932). Die Ganzheitsbetrachtung in der Biologie. Berlin: Elsner.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Beckner, M. O. (1959). The biological way of thought. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Beckner, M. O. (1967). Organismic biology. In P. Edwards (Ed.), The encyclopedia of philosophy (Vol. 5, pp. 549–551). New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bergson, H. (1907). L’Évolution créatrice. Paris: Les Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bruce, R. W. (2014). A reflection on biological thought: Whatever happened to the organism? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 112, 354–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Byron, J. M. (2007). Whence philosophy of biology? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 58, 409–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cain, J. (2000). Woodger, positivism, and the evolutionary synthesis. Biology and Philosophy, 15, 535–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Callebaut, W. (1993). Taking the naturalistic turn, or how real philosophy of science is done. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Callebaut, W. (2005). Again, what the philosophy of biology is not. Acta Biotheoretica, 53, 93–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cassirer, E. (1950). The problem of knowledge: Philosophy, science, and history since Hegel (W. H. Woglom & C. W. Hendel, Trans.). New Haven: Yale University Press.

  16. Child, C. M. (1915a). Senescence and rejuvenescence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Child, C. M. (1915b). Individuality in organisms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Coen, D. R. (2006). Living precisely in fin-de-siècle Vienna. Journal of the History of Biology, 39, 493–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Coleman, W. (1977). Biology in the nineteenth century: Problems of form, function, and transformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Creath, R. (2014). Logical empiricism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (spring 2014 edition). Retrieved July 8, 2015, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/logical-empiricism.

  21. Delage, Y. (1903). L’Hérédité et les grands problèmes de la biologie générale (2nd ed.). Paris: Reinwald.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Driesch, H. (1908). The science and philosophy of the organism. New York: Macmillan & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Driesch, H. (1914). The problem of individuality. London: Macmillan & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Elkus, S. A. (1911). Mechanism and vitalism. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 8, 355–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Esposito, M. (2013a). Romantic biology, 1890–1945. London: Pickering & Chatto.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Esposito, M. (2013b). Heredity, development and evolution: The unmodern synthesis of E. S. Russell. Theory in Biosciences, 132, 165–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Etxeberria, A., & Umerez, J. (2006). Organismo y organización en la biología teórica: ¿Vuelta al organicismo? Ludus Vitalis, 14, 3–38.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gilbert, S. F., & Sarkar, S. (2000). Embracing complexity: Organicism for the 21st century. Developmental Dynamics, 219, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Goldstein, K. (1934). Der Aufbau des Organismus: Einführung in die Biologie unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Erfahrungen am kranken Menschen. The Hague: Nijhoff.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Griffiths, P. (2014). Philosophy of biology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (winter 2014 edition). Retrieved July 28, 2015, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/biology-philosophy.

  31. Haldane, J. S. (1884). Life and mechanism. Mind, 9, 27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Haldane, J. S. (1908). The relation of physiology to physics and chemistry. British Medical Journal, 2, 693–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Haldane, J. S. (1917). Organism and environment as illustrated by the physiology of breathing. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  34. Haldane, J. S. (1921). Mechanism, life, and personality: An examination of the mechanistic theory of life and mind (2nd ed.). London: John Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Haldane, J. S. (1930). The sciences and philosophy. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Haldane, J. S. (1931). The philosophical basis of biology. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Haldane, J. S. (1932). Materialism. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Haldane, J. S. (1935). The philosophy of a biologist. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Haldane, J. B. S. (1938). The Marxist philosophy and the sciences. London: Allen.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Haraway, D. J. (1976). Crystals, fabrics, and fields: Metaphors of organicism in twentieth-century developmental biology. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hein, H. (1969). Molecular biology vs. organicism: The enduring dispute between mechanism and vitalism. Synthese, 20, 238–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hofer, V. (2002). Philosophy of biology around the Vienna circle: Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Joseph Henry Woodger and Philipp Frank. In M. Heidelberger & F. Stadler (Eds.), History of philosophy and science (pp. 325–333). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  43. Hofer, V. (2013). Philosophy of biology in early logical empiricism. In H. Andersen, D. Dieks, W. J. Gonzalez, T. Uebel, & G. Wheeler (Eds.), New challenges to philosophy of science. The philosophy of science in a European perspective (Vol. 4, pp. 351–363). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Hogben, L. (1930). The nature of living matter. London: Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hull, D. L. (1965a). The effect of essentialism on taxonomy: Two thousand years of stasis (I). British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 15, 314–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hull, D. L. (1965b). The effect of essentialism on taxonomy: Two thousand years of stasis (II). British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 16, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Hull, D. L. (1969). What philosophy of biology is not. Synthese, 20, 157–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hull, D. L. (1972). Reduction in genetics: Biology or philosophy? Philosophy of Science, 39, 491–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Hull, D. L. (1974). Philosophy of biological science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Hull, D. L. (1988). Science as process: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  51. Hull, D. L. (1994). Ernst Mayr’s influence on the history and philosophy of biology: A personal memoir. Biology and Philosophy, 9, 375–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Hunter, G. K. (2000). Vital forces: The discovery of the molecular basis of life. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Huxley, J. (1912). The individual in the animal kingdom. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Jennings, H. S. (1918). Mechanism and vitalism. The Philosophical Review, 27, 577–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Johnstone, J. (1914). The philosophy of biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  56. Kirschner, M., Gerhart, J., & Mitchison, T. (2000). Molecular ‘vitalism’. Cell, 100, 79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Koestler, A., & Smythies, J. R. (Eds.). (1969). Beyond reductionism: New perspectives in the life sciences. London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Laubichler, M. (2001). Mit oder ohne Darwin? Die Bedeutung der darwinschen Selektionstheorie in der Konzeption der Theoretischen Biologie in Deutschland von 1900 bis zum Zweiten Weltkrieg. In U. Hoßfeld & R. Brömer (Eds.), Darwinismus und/als Ideologie: Verhandlungen zur Geschichte und Theorie der Biologie (Vol. 6, pp. 229–262). Berlin: VWB.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Lillie, R. S. (1914). The philosophy of biology: Vitalism versus mechanism. Science, 40, 840–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Lillie, R. S. (1926). The nature of the vitalistic dilemma. Journal of Philosophy, 23, 673–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Lillie, R. S. (1932). The directive influence in living organisms. Journal of Philosophy, 29, 477–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Lillie, R. S. (1934). The problem of vital organization. Philosophy of Science, 1, 296–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Lillie, R. S. (1937). Directive action and life. Philosophy of Science, 4, 202–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Lillie, R. S. (1940). Biological causation. Philosophy of Science, 7, 314–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Lillie, R. S. (1942a). The problem of synthesis in biology. Philosophy of Science, 9, 59–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Lillie, R. S. (1942b). Living systems and non-living systems. Philosophy of Science, 9, 307–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Lillie, R. S. (1948). Some aspects of theoretical biology. Philosophy of Science, 15, 118–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Lloyd Morgan, C. (1923). Emergent evolution. London: Williams & Norgate.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Logan, C. A., & Brauckmann, S. (2015). Controlling and culturing diversity: Experimental zoology before World War II and Vienna’s Biologische Versuchsanstalt. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 323A, 211–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Mainx, F. (1955). Foundations of biology (J. H. Woodger, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  71. Mayr, E. (1961). Cause and effect in biology. Science, 134, 1501–1506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Mayr, E. (1969). Footnotes on the philosophy of biology. Philosophy of Science, 36, 197–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Mayr, E. (1988). Toward a new philosophy of biology: Observations of an evolutionist. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Mayr, E. (2004). What makes biology unique? Considerations on the autonomy of a scientific discipline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  75. McDougall, W. (1938). The riddle of life: A survey of theories. London: Methuen & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Meyer, A. (1934). Ideen und Ideale der biologischen Erkenntnis: Beiträge zur Theorie und Geschichte der biologischen Ideologien. Leipzig: J.A. Barth.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Morgan, T. H. (1919). The physical basis of heredity. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippencott Co.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  78. Morgan, T. H. (1926). The theory of the gene. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Nagel, E. (1951). Mechanistic explanation and organismic biology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 11, 327–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Needham, J. (1925a). Mechanistic biology and the religious consequences. In J. Needham (Ed.), Science, religion and reality (pp. 219–258). New York: The Macmillan Company.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Needham, J. (1925b). The philosophical basis of biochemistry. The Monist, 35, 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Needham, J. (1928a). Organicism in biology. Journal of Philosophical Studies, 3, 29–40.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Needham, J. (1928b). Recent developments in the philosophy of biology. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 3, 77–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Needham, J. (1930a). Philosophy and embryology: Prolegomena to a quantitative science of development I. The Monist, 40, 193–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Needham, J. (1930b). Philosophy and embryology: Prolegomena to a quantitative science of development II. The Monist, 40, 339–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Needham, J. (1930c). Review of ‘Biological principles: A critical study’ by J. H. Woodger. Mind, 39, 221–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Needham, J. (1932). Thoughts on the problem of biological organization. Scientia, 52, 64–92.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Needham, J. (1936). Order and life. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Needham, J. (1943). Time: The refreshing river (Essays and addresses, 1932-1942). London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  90. Nicholson, D. J. (2014). The return of the organism as a fundamental explanatory concept in biology. Philosophy Compass, 9, 347–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Nicholson, D. J., & Gawne, R. (2014). Rethinking Woodger’s legacy in the philosophy of biology. Journal of the History of Biology, 47, 243–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Normandin, S., & Wolfe, C. T. (Eds.). (2013). Vitalism and the scientific image in post-enlightenment life science: 1800-2010. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Oparin, A. I. (1961). Life: Its nature, origin and development (A. Synge, Trans.). Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.

  94. Peterson, E. L. (2011). The excluded philosophy of evo-devo? Revisiting Waddington’s failed attempt to embed Alfred North Whitehead’s ‘organicism’ in evolutionary biology. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 33, 301–332.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Peterson, E. L. (2014). The conquest of vitalism or the eclipse of organicism? The 1930s Cambridge organizer project and the social network of mid-twentieth-century biology. British Journal for the History of Science, 47, 281–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Pouvreau, D. (2009). The dialectical tragedy of the concept of wholeness: Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s biography revisited (E. Schober, Trans.). New York: ISCE Publishing.

  97. Prenant, M. (1938). Biology and Marxism (C. D. Greaves, Trans.). London: Lawrence & Wishart.

  98. Reill, P. H. (2005). Vitalizing nature in the enlightenment. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Reiß, C. (2007). No evolution, no heredity, just development—Julius Schaxel and the end of the evo-devo agenda in Jena, 1906–1933: A case study. Theory in the Biosciences, 126, 155–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Rieppel, O. (2003). Semaphoronts, cladograms and the roots of total evidence. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 80, 167–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Rignano, E. (1926). Biological memory. London: Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Ritter, W. E. (1909). Life from the biologist’s standpoint. Popular Science Monthly, 75, 174–190.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Ritter, W. E. (1918). The higher usefulness of science and other essays. Boston: Gorham Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  104. Ritter, W. E. (1919a). The unity of the organism, or, the organismal conception of life (Vol. 1). Boston: Gorham Press.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Ritter, W. E. (1919b). The unity of the organism, or the organismal conception of life (Vol. 2). Boston: Gorham Press.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Ritter, W. E. (1932). Why Aristotle invented the word entelecheia. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 7, 377–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Ritter, W. E. (1933). Historical and contemporary relationships of physical and biological sciences: A critical summary of the papers presented at the third session of the second international congress of the history of science. Archeion, 14, 497–502.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Ritter, W. E., & Bailey, E. W. (1928). The organismal conception: Its place in science and its bearing on philosophy. University of California Publications in Zoology, 131, 307–358.

    Google Scholar 

  109. 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, 399–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Rosenberg, A. (1985). The structure of biological science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  111. Ruse, M. (1969). Definitions of species in biology. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 20, 97–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Ruse, M. (1970). Are there laws in biology? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 48, 234–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Ruse, M. (1971). Functional statements in biology. Philosophy of Science, 38, 87–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Ruse, M. (1973). The philosophy of biology. London: Hutchinson & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Ruse, M. (1988). Philosophy of biology today. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Ruse, M. (2000). Booknotes 15.3. Biology and Philosophy, 15, 465–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Russell, E. S. (1911). Vitalism. Scientia, 9, 329–345.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Russell, E. S. (1924). The study of living things: Prolegomena to a functional biology. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Russell, E. S. (1930). The interpretation of development and heredity: A study in biological method. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Russell, E. S. (1933). The limitations of analysis in biology. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 33, 147–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Russell, E. S. (1945). The directiveness of organic activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Russell, E. S. (1950). The ‘drive’ element in life. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1, 108–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Russell, E. S. (1952). Review of ‘Problems of life’ by Ludwig von Bertalanffy. Science Progress, 40, 748.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Sarkar, S. (1996). Logical empiricism and the special sciences: Reichenbach, Feigl, and Nagel. New York: Garland Publishing Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Sarkar, S. (Under review). That was the philosophy of biology that was: Mainx, Woodger, Nagel, and logical empiricism, 1929-1961.

  126. Schaffner, K. F. (1969a). Theories and explanations in biology. Journal of the History of Biology, 2, 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Schaffner, K. F. (1969b). The Watson-Crick model and reductionism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 20, 325–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Schaffner, K. F. (1974). Reductionism in biology: Prospects and problems. In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (Vol. 1972, pp. 613–632). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  129. Schaxel, J. (1913). Bergsons Philosophie und die biologische Forschung. Die Naturwissenschaften, 1, 796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Schaxel, J. (1919). Grundzüge der Theoriebildung in der Biologie. Jena: Gustav Fischer.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Sellars, R. W. (1922). Evolutionary naturalism. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Singer, C. (1989). A history of biology to about the year 1900 (3rd ed.). Ames: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Smart, J. J. C. (1963). Philosophy and scientific realism. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Smocovitis, V. B. (1992). Unifying biology: The evolutionary synthesis and evolutionary biology. Journal of the History of Biology, 25, 1–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Smuts, J. (1926). Holism and evolution. London: Macmillan & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  136. Takacs, P., & Ruse, M. (2013). The current status of the philosophy of biology. Science & Education, 22, 5–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Thompson, P. (1989). The structure of biological theories. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Ungerer, E. (1926). Die Regulationen der Pflanzen: Ein System der ganzheitsbezogenen Vorgänge bei den Pflanzen (2nd ed.). Berlin: Julius Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  139. von Bertalanffy, L. (1928). Kritische Theorie der Formbildung (Schaxels Abhandlungen zur Theoretischen Biologie, Bd. 27). Berlin: Gebrüder Borntraeger.

    Google Scholar 

  140. von Bertalanffy, L. (1930a). Mechanism and vitalism in the light of critical biology: A discussion of the Rignano-Needham controversy. Psyche Miniatures, 10, 60–72.

    Google Scholar 

  141. von Bertalanffy, L. (1930b). Tatsachen und Theorien der Formbildung als Weg zum Lebensproblem. Erkenntnis, 1, 361–407.

  142. von Bertalanffy, L. (1932). Theoretische Biologie, Bd. I: Allgemeine Theorie, Physikochemie, Aufbau und Entwicklung des Organismus. Berlin: Gebrüder Borntraeger.

    Google Scholar 

  143. von Bertalanffy, L. (1933). Modern theories of development: An introduction to theoretical biology (J. H. Woodger, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  144. von Bertalanffy, L. (1942). Theoretische Biologie, Bd. II: Stoffwechsel, Wachstum. Berlin: Gebrüder Borntraeger.

    Google Scholar 

  145. von Bertalanffy, L. (1952). Problems of life: An evaluation of modern biological and scientific thought. New York: Harper & Brothers.

    Google Scholar 

  146. von Bertalanffy, L. (1962). Modern theories of development: An introduction to theoretical biology (J. H. Woodger, Trans.). New York: Harper Torchbooks.

  147. von Bertalanffy, L. (1967). Robots, men, and minds: Psychology in the modern world. New York: George Braziler Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  148. von Uexküll, J. (1926). Theoretical biology (D. L. Mackinnon, Trans.). London: Kegan Paul.

  149. Weiss, P. A. (1925). Tierisches Verhalten als ‘Systemreaktion’: Die Orientierung der Ruhestellungen von Schmetterlingen (Vanessa) gegen Licht und Schwerkraft. Biologia Generalis, 1, 165–248.

    Google Scholar 

  150. Weiss, P. A. (1926). Morphodynamik: Ein Einblick in die Gesetze der organischen Gestaltung an Hand von experimentellen Ergebnissen (Schaxels Abhandlungen zur Theoretischen Biologie, Bd. 23). Berlin: Gebrüder Borntraeger.

    Google Scholar 

  151. Weiss, P. A. (1939). Principles of development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  152. Weiss, P. A. (1940). The problem of cell individuality in development. American Naturalist, 74, 34–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  153. Weiss, P. A. (1962). From cell to molecule. In J. M. Allen (Ed.), The molecular control of cellular activity (pp. 1–72). Toronto: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  154. Weiss, P. A. (1963). The cell as unit. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 5, 389–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  155. Weiss, P. A. (1967). 1 + 1 ≠ 2 (One plus one does not equal two). In G. C. Gardner, T. Quarton, & Melnechuk (Eds.), The neurosciences: A study program (pp. 801–821). New York: Rockefeller University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  156. Weiss, P. A. (1969). The living system: Determinism stratified. In A. Koestler & J. R. Smythies (Eds.), Beyond reductionism: New perspectives in the life sciences (pp. 3–55). London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  157. Weiss, P. A. (1971). The basic concept of hierarchic systems. In P. A. Weiss (Ed.), Hierarchically organized systems in theory and practice (pp. 1–43). New York: Hafner.

    Google Scholar 

  158. Weiss, P. A. (1973). The science of life: The living system—a system for living. Mount Kisco: Futura Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  159. Weiss, P. A. (1977). The system of nature and the nature of systems: Empirical holism and practical reductionism harmonized. In K. E. Schaefer, H. Hensel, & R. Brady (Eds.), A new image of man in medicine (pp. 17–63). New York: Futura Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  160. Wheeler, W. M. (1906). The kelep excused. Science, 23, 348–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  161. Wheeler, W. M. (1929). Present tendencies in biological theory. The Scientific Monthly, 28, 97–109.

    Google Scholar 

  162. Wheeler, L. R. (1939). Vitalism: Its history and validity. London: H. F. & G. Witherby Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  163. Whitehead, A. N. (1925). Science and the modern world. New York: Macmillan Co.

    Google Scholar 

  164. Whitman, C. O. (1893). The inadequacy of the cell-theory of development. Journal of Morphology, 8, 639–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  165. Wimsatt, W. C. (1971). Function, organization, and selection. Zygon, 6, 168–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  166. Wimsatt, W. C. (1972). Teleology and the logical structure of function statements. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 3, 1–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  167. Wimsatt, W. C. (1974). Complexity and organization. In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, (Vol. 1972, pp. 67–86). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  168. Wolters, G. (1999). Wrongful life: Logico-empiricist philosophy of biology. In M. C. Galavotti & A. Pagnini (Eds.), Experience, reality, and scientific explanation: Essays in honor of Merrilee and Wesley Salmon (pp. 187–208). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  169. Woodger, J. H. (1929a). Biological principles: A critical study. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  170. Woodger, J. H. (1929b). Some aspects of biological methodology. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (New Series), 29, 351–358.

    Google Scholar 

  171. Woodger, J. H. (1930a). The ‘concept of organism’ and the relation between embryology and genetics, Part I. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 5, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  172. Woodger, J. H. (1930b). The ‘concept of organism’ and the relation between embryology and genetics, Part II. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 5, 438–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  173. Woodger, J. H. (1930c). Biological principles. Mind, 39, 403–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  174. Woodger, J. H. (1931). The ‘concept of organism’ and the relation between embryology and genetics, Part III. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 6, 178–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  175. Woodger, J. H. (1937). The axiomatic method in biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  176. Woodger, J. H. (1939). The technique of theory construction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  177. Woodger, J. H. (1952). Biology and language: An introduction to the methodology of the biological sciences including medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  178. Woodger, J. H. (1956). Physics, psychology and medicine: A methodological essay. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  179. Woodger, J. H. (1959). Studies in the foundations of genetics. In L. Henkin, P. Suppes, & A. Tarski (Eds.), The axiomatic method, with special reference to geometry and physics (pp. 408–428). Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers, as well as members of the Biology Interest Group at the University of Exeter, for extremely helpful comments. Audiences at the third Philosophy of Biology at Madison workshop in Wisconsin and the fifth conference on Integrated History and Philosophy of Science in Vienna provided valuable feedback on presentations of this material. The research undertaken for this paper was supported by grants from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007–2013)/ERC Grant Agreement No 324186 (D. J. N.), the Danish-American Fulbright Commission (R. G.), and Duke University (R. G.).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel J. Nicholson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nicholson, D.J., Gawne, R. Neither logical empiricism nor vitalism, but organicism: what the philosophy of biology was. HPLS 37, 345–381 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-015-0085-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • History of philosophy of biology
  • Logical empiricism
  • Vitalism
  • Organicism
  • Theoretical biology