David Hull’s Conception of the Structure of Evolutionary Theory

  • Paul Thompson
Part of the Nijhoff International Philosophy Series book series (NIPS, volume 32)


David Hull is one of the founding fathers of modern philosophy of biology and he has written on most of the significant issues in the field. One area in which he has made extremely important contributions is sytematics. What has intrigued me for some time, however, is his conception of the structure of evolutionary theory and it is on this aspect of his work that I shall focus in this paper. The principal exposition of his conception is found in his book The Philosophy of Biological Science (1974) (page number references without source identification are to this book).


Evolutionary Theory Scientific Theory Theory Structure Alternative Conception Semantic Conception 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beatty, J. (1980a). Optimal-design models and the strategy of model building in evolutionary biology. Philosophy of Science 47:532–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beatty, J. (1980b). What’s wrong with the received view of evolutionary theory? In P.D. Asquith and R.N. Giere (eds) PSA 1980, vol. 2. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
  3. Beatty, J. (1987). On behalf of the semantic view. Biology and Philosophy 2:17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braithwaite, R. (1953). Scientific Explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Carnap, R. (1936). Testability and meaning. Philosophy of Science 3:420–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Camap, R. (1937). Testability and meaning. Philosophy of Science 4:1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carnap, R. (1956). The methodological character of theoretical concepts. In H. Feigl and M. Scriven (eds), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 1. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hempel, C. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hempel, CG. (1967). Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Hempel, CG. and Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science 15:135–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hull, D.L. (1974). Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
  12. Lloyd, E. (1984). A semantic approach to the structure of population genetics. Philosophy of Science 51:242–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lloyd, E. (1987). Confirmation of ecological and evolutionary models. Biology and Philosophy 2:277–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lloyd, E. (1988). The Structure of Population Genetics.Google Scholar
  15. Nagel, E. (1961). The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
  16. Rosenberg, A. (1981). The interaction of evolutionary and genetic theory. In L.W. Sumner, J.G. Slater and F.F. Wilson (eds), Pragmatism and Purpose: Essays Presented to Thomas Goudge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  17. Rosenberg, A. (1985). The Structure of Biological Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Ruse, M. (1977). Is biology different from physics? In R. Colodny (ed.), Logic Laws and Life. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.Google Scholar
  19. Ruse, M. (1973). The Philosophy of Biology. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  20. Sober, E. (1984). Fact, fiction and fitness: a reply to Rosenberg. Journal of Philosophy 81:372–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Suppe, F. (1972). What’s wrong with the received view on the structure of scientific theories? Philosophy of Science 39:1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Suppe, F. (1988). Scientific Realism and the Semantic Conception of the Structure of Scientific Theories. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  23. Suppe, F. (1976). Theoretical laws. In M. Prezlecki, K. Szaniawski and R. Wojcicki, Formal Method in the Methodology of Empirical Science. Wroclaw: Ossolineum.Google Scholar
  24. Suppes, P. (1967). What is a scientific theory. In S. Morgenbesser (ed.) Philosophy of Science Today. New York: Basic Books, pp. 55–67.Google Scholar
  25. Thompson, P. (1983). The structure of evolutionary theory: a semantic approach. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 14:215–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Thompson, P. (1986). The interaction of theories and the semantic conception of evolutionary theory. Philosophica 37:73–86.Google Scholar
  27. Thompson, P. (1989). The Structure of Biological Theories. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  28. Van Fraassen, B.C. (1970). On the extension of Beth’s semantics of physical theories. Philosophy of Science 37:325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Van Fraassen, B.C. (1972). A formal approach to philosophy of science. In R.E. Colodny (ed.), Paradigms and Paradoxes. Pittsburgh: The University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  30. Van Fraassen, B.C. (1980). The Scientific Image. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Williams, M.B. (1970). Deducing the consequences of evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology 29:343–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Thompson
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations