Skip to main content

Ought Philosophers Consider Scientific Discovery? A Darwinian Case-Study

  • Chapter
Scientific Discovery: Case Studies

Part of the book series: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science ((BSPS,volume 60))

Abstract

My concern in this paper will be with Darwin’s discovery of his theory of evolution, particularly the part centered on its mechanisms. What I want to know is whether knowledge of Darwin’s route to discovery tells us something about the finished theory, say as it is found in the first edition of The Origin of Species (1859). Do we, as philosophers, need to know how Darwin got his theory in order to understand his theory? I take it that there is a school of philosophical thought, ‘logical empiricism’, that would argue that essentially a scientist’s route to discovery is irrelevant to his or her finished product. A scientific theory or hypothesis is in some sense intended to be a reflection of reality. Hence, that a scientist may have gotten his ideas after years of painstaking fitting of the data to possible ideas, like Kepler, or in a flash through mystical contemplation of his navel, is of absolutely no concern.1 Even if Archimedes had never taken a bath in his life, his principle would still have been the same.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  • Black, M.: 1962, Models and Metaphors, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N. Y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M.: 1968, Analogy in quantum theory: From insight to nonsense, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 18, 265–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, B.: 1972, Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, Aldine Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C.: 1859, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Murray, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C.: 1ST 1, Descent of Man, Murray, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C.: 1960, Darwin’s notebooks on transmutation of species, Part III (Notebook D), edited by D. de Beer, Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Hist. Ser. 2, 121–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, С.: 1969, Autobiography, N. Barlow (ed.), Norton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, F., and A. C. Seward: 1903, More Letters of Charles Darwin, Murray, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C., and A. R. Wallace: 1858, On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, Zoological Journal 3, 46–62. Reprinted in C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin and A. R. Wallace, Evolution by Natural Selection, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R.: 1976, The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M.: 1969, The Triumph of the Darwinian Method, Univ. of California Press, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C.: 1966, Philosophy of Natural Science, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbert, S.: 1971, Darwin, Malthus, and selection\Journal of the History of Biology 4, 209–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse, M.: 1966, Models and Analogies in Science, Univ. of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D.: 1973, Darwin and His Critics, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S.: 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I.: 1970, Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes, in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, L.: 1977, Progress and its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth, Univ. of California Press, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Limoges, C.: 1970, La Sdlection Naturelle, Universitaires de France, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyell, C.: 1830–1833, Principles of Geology, Murray, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malthus, T. R.: 1826, An Essay on the Principle of Population, 6th ed., London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, R.: 1834, On the generation of the marsupial animals, with a description of the impregnated uterus of the kangaroo, Philosophical Transactions, pp. 333–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R.: 1959, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R.: 1970, Normal science and its dangers, in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M.: 1973, The Philosophy of Biology, Hutchinson, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M.: 19736, The Value of analogical models in science, Dialogue 12, 246–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M.: 1975л, Charles Darwin and artificial selection, Journal of the History of Ideas 36, 339–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M.: 19756,Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution: an analysis, Journal of the History of Biology 8, 219–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M.: 1975c, Darwin’s debt to philosophy: an examination of the influence of the philosophical ideas of John F. W. Herschel and William Whewell on the development of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 6, 159–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, Μ.: 191 Sd, The relationship between science and religion in Britain, 1830–1870, Church History 44,505–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M.: 1977, Is biology different? in R. Colodny (ed.), Laws, Logic, Life, Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science, Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, Μ.: 1979a, The Darwinian Revolution: Science Red in Tooth and Claw, Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M.: 19796, Sociobiology: Sense or Nonsense D. Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M.: 1979c, Philosophical factors in the Darwinian Revolution, in F. Wilson (ed.), Pragmatism and Purpose, Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebright, J.: 1809, Hie art of improving the breeds of domestic animals in a letter addressed to the Right Hon. Sir Joseph Banks, K. B. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorzimmer, P. J.: 1970, Charies Darwin: The Years of Controversy, Temple Univ. Press, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whewell, W.: 1840, Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, Parker, London.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1980 D. Reidel Publishing Company

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ruse, M. (1980). Ought Philosophers Consider Scientific Discovery? A Darwinian Case-Study. In: Nickles, T. (eds) Scientific Discovery: Case Studies. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 60. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9015-9_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9015-9_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-277-1093-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-9015-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics