In the preceding edition of this series, Chiaraviglio ([1], p. 384) concludes his contribution on biology and philosophy by indicating two hopes for the next decade: that more researchers take up philosophy of biology as a full-time activity and that biology play a greater role in this work than it has in the past. To some extent, Chiaraviglio’s hopes have been realized. During the past ten years, numerous books and anthologies have appeared which are devoted exclusively to the philosophy of biology, and biology as a scientific discipline plays a greater role in these works than it did in their predecessors ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] ,[11] ; see also Hull [12], [13] and Kleiner [14] forreviews).


Evolutionary Theory Theory Reduction Reduction Function Functional Explanation Logical Empiricist 
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. [77]
    Achinstein, P. Function Statements. Philosophy of Science. 44 (1977): 341–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [71]
    Ayala, F.J. Teleological Explanation in Evolutionary Biology. Philosophy of Science 37 (1970): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [9]
    Ayala, F.J. and Dobzhansky, Th. (Eds.) Studies in the Philosophy of Biology. London 1974.Google Scholar
  4. [74]
    Baublys, K.K. Comments on Some Recent Analyses of Functional Statements in Biology. Philosophy of Science. 42 (1975): 469–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [17]
    Beckner, M. The Biological Way of Thought. New York 1959.Google Scholar
  6. [37]
    Beckner, M. Reduction, Hierarchies and Organicism. In Ayalla and Dobzhansky [9], pp. 163–178.Google Scholar
  7. [2]
    Blackburn, R.T. (Ed.) Interrelations: The Biological and Physical Sciences. Chicago 1966.Google Scholar
  8. [93]
    Boorse, C. Wright on Functions. Philosophical Review. 85(1976): 70–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [15]
    Braithwaite, R.B. Scientific Explanation. Cambridge 1953.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Brandon, R.N. Adaptation and Evolutionary Theory. Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 9(1978): 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [98]
    Brody, B. The Reduction of Teleological Sciences. American Philosophical Quarterly, 12 (1975): 69–76.Google Scholar
  12. [68]
    Burian, R. More Than a Marriage of Convenience: On the Inextricability of History and Philosophy of Science. Philosophy of Science. 44 (1977): 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [124]
    Campbell, D.T. Evolutionary Epistemology. In P.A. Schlipp (Ed.), The Philosophy of Karl R. Popper. La Salle, Ill. 1974.Google Scholar
  14. [125]
    Campbell, D.T. The Natural Selection Model of Conceptual Evolution. Philosophical Science. 44 (1977): 502–507.Google Scholar
  15. [3]
    Canfield, J.V. (Ed.) Purpose in Nature. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1966.Google Scholar
  16. [106]
    Caplan, A. Tautology, Circularity, and Biological Theory. Amer. Nat. 110 (1976): 390–392.Google Scholar
  17. [100]
    Caplan, A. (Ed.) The Sociobiology Debate. New York 1978.Google Scholar
  18. [99]
    Cassidy, J. Philosophical Aspects of the Group Selection Controversy. Phil. Sci. 45 (1978): 575–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [107]
    Castrodeza, C. Tautologies, Beliefs, and Empirical Knowledge. Amer. Nat. 110(1976): 393–394.Google Scholar
  20. [38]
    Causey, R.L. Polanyi on Structure and Reduction. Sythese 20 (1969): 230–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [43]
    Causey, R.L. Uniform Mctoieduction. Synthese 25 (1972): 176–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [44]
    Causey, R.L. Attribute-Identities in Microreduction. J. Phil. 69 (1972): 407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [1]
    Chiaraviglio, L. Biology and Philosophy. In R. Klibansky (Ed.), Vol. 2, pp. 376–386. Firenze 1968.Google Scholar
  24. [92]
    Chiaraviglio, L. Functional Analysis. J. Phil. 72 (1975): 741–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [81]
    Cummins, R. Programs in the Explanation of Behavior. Phil. Sci. 44 (1977): 269–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [65]
    Darden, L., and Maull, N. Interfield Theories. Phil. Sci. 44(1977): 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [57]
    Davidson, D. Mental Events. In L. Foster and J.W. Swanson (Eds.), Experience and Theory. Amherst 1970.Google Scholar
  28. [50]
    Dobzhansky, Th. Genetics and the Evolutionary Process. New York 1970.Google Scholar
  29. [120]
    Eldredge, N., and Gould, S.J. Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism. In T.J.M. Schopf (Ed.), Models in Paleobiology, pp. 82–115. San Francisco 1972.Google Scholar
  30. [108]
    Ferguson, A. Can Evolutionary Theory Predict? Amer. Nat. 110(1976): 1101–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [95]
    Ghiselin, M. The Triumph of the Darwinian Method. Berkeley 1969.Google Scholar
  32. [121]
    Ghiselin, M. A Radical Solution to the Species Problem. Syst. Zool 23 (1974): 536–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [25]
    Glymour, C. On Some Patterns of Reduction. Phil Sci. 37 (1970): 340–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [30]
    Goodfield, J. Changing Strategies: A Comparison of Reductionist Attitudes in Biological and Medical Research in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. In Ayalla and Dobzhansky [9], pp. 65–86.Google Scholar
  35. [49]
    Goosens, W.K. Reduction by Molecular Genetics. Phil Sci. 45 (1978): 73–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [4]
    Grene, M. Approaches to Philosophical Biology. New York 1969.Google Scholar
  37. [11]
    Grene, M., and Mendelsohn, E. (Eds.) Topics in the Philosophy of Biology. Dordrecht (Holland), 1976.Google Scholar
  38. [19]
    Hempel, C.G. Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York 1965.Google Scholar
  39. [51]
    Holton, G. Scientific Imagination: Case Studies. Cambridge 1978.Google Scholar
  40. [59]
    Horgan, T. Supervenient Bridge Laws. Phil. Sci. 45 (1978): 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. [10]
    Hull, D.L. Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1974.Google Scholar
  42. [12]
    Hull, D.L. What Philosophy of Biology is Not. J. Hist. Biol 2 (1969): 241–268;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. [12a]
    Hull, D.L. What Philosophy of Biology is Not. Synthese 20 (1969): 157–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. [13]
    Hull, D.L. Philosophy of Biology. In P. Asquith and H. Kyburg (Eds.), Current Research in Philosophy of Science. Ann Arbor 1979.Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    Hull, D.L. Reduction in Genetics — Biology or Philosophy? Phil Sci. 39 (1972): 491–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. [46]
    Hull, D.L. Reduction in Genetics — Doing the Impossible. In P. Suppes (Eds.), Proceedings of the IVth International Congress of Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, pp. 619–635. North-Holland 1973.Google Scholar
  47. [52]
    Hull, D.L. Are Species Really Individuals? Syst. Zool 25 (1976): 174–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. [54]
    Hull, D.L. Informal Aspects of Theory Reduction. In R.S. Cohen et. al. (Eds.), PSA 1974, pp. 653–670. Dordrecht 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. [66]
    Hull, D.L. Central Subjects and Historical Narratives. Hist. Theory 14 (1975): 253–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. [67]
    Hull, D.L. A Matter of Individuality. PM. Sci 45 (1978): 335–360.Google Scholar
  51. [58]
    Kim, J. Supervenience and Nomological Incommensurables. Am. Phil. Quart 15(1978): 149–156.Google Scholar
  52. [14]
    Kleiner, S. Essay Review: The Philosophy of Biology. South. J. Phil. 13 (1975): 523–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. [61]
    Lakatos, I. Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. In I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, pp. 91–196. North-Holland 1970.Google Scholar
  54. [64]
    Laudan, L. Program and Its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley 1977.Google Scholar
  55. [73]
    Lehman, H. Functional Explanation in Biology. Phil. Sci. 32 (1965): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. [41]
    Lewontin, R. The Bases of Conflict in Biological Explanation. J. Hist Biol. 2 (1969): 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. [111]
    Lewontin, R. Adaptation. Sc. Amer. 239(1978): 212–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. [80]
    Machamer, R. Teleology and Selective Processes. In R. Colodny (Ed.), Logic, Laws and Life, pp. 129–142. Pittsburgh 1977.Google Scholar
  59. [116]
    Manier, E. Functionalism and the Negative Feedback Model in Biology. In R.C. Buck and R.S. Cohen (Eds.), PSA 1970, pp. 225–240. Dordrecht 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. [34]
    Maull, N. Reconstructed Science as Philosophical Evidence. In F. Suppe and P.D. Asquith (Eds.), PSA 1978, pp. 119–129. East Lansing, Mich. 1978.Google Scholar
  61. [55]
    Maull, N. Unifying Science without Reduction. Stud. Hist Phil. Sci 8 (1977): 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. [29]
    Mayr, E. Scientific Explanation and Conceptual Frameworks. J. Hist. Biol. 2(1969): 123–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. [69]
    Mayr, E. Teleological and Teleonomic, A New Analysis. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 14, pp. 91–117. Dordrecht 1974.Google Scholar
  64. [70]
    Mayr, E. Cause and Effect in Biology. Science 124 (1961): 1501–1506 and in Munson [5], pp. 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. [122]
    Mayr, E. Evolution. Sci. Amer. 239 (1978): 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. [5]
    Munson, R. (Ed.) Man and Nature. New York 1971.Google Scholar
  67. [72]
    Munson, R. Biological Adaptation. Phil. Sci 38 (1971): 200–215, and in Grene and Mendelsohn [11], pp. 330–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. [97]
    Munson, R. Biological Adaptation: A Reply. Phil. Sci. 39 (1972): 529–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. [114]
    Munson, R. Is Biology a Provincial Science. Phil. Sci 42 (1975): 428–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. [18]
    Nagel, E. The Structure of Science. New York 1961.Google Scholar
  71. [32]
    Nagel, E. Commentary. J. Hist. Biol. 2 (1969): 128–134.Google Scholar
  72. [76]
    Nagel, E. Teleology Revisited. J. Phil. 74 (1977): 261–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. [26]
    Nickles, T. Two Concepts of Intertheoretic Reduction. J. Phil. 70 (1973): 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. [79]
    Nissen, L. Wimsatt on Function Statements. Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 8 (1977): 341–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. [104]
    Peters, R.H. Tautology in Evolution and Ecology. Amer. Nat. 110 (1976): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. [35]
    Polanyi, M. Life’s Irreducible Structure. Science. 160 (1968): 1308–1312, and in Grene and Mendelsohn [11], pp. 128–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. [123]
    Popper, K.R. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford 1972.Google Scholar
  78. [126]
    Richards, R.S. The Natural Selection Model of Conceptual Evolution. Phil. Sci 44 (1977): 494–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. [85]
    Ringen, J.D. Explanation, Teleology, and Operant Behaviorism. Phil. Sci 43 (1976): 223–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. [31]
    Roll-Hansen, N. Drosophila Genetics: A Reductionist Research Program. J. Hist. Biol 11 (1978): 159–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. [56]
    Rosenberg, A. The Supervenience of Biological Concepts. Phil. Sci 45 (1978): 368–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. [7]
    Ruse, M. Philosophy of Biology. London 1973.Google Scholar
  83. [33]
    Ruse, M. Reduction, Replacement, and Molecular Biology. Dialectica 25 (1971): 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. [47]
    Ruse, M. Reduction in Genetics. In R.S. Cohen et. al. (Eds.), PSA 1974. Vol. 2, pp. 633–651. Dordrecht 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. [86]
    Ruse, M. Review of Woodfield (1976) and Wright (1976). Can. J. Phil. 8 (1978): 191–203.Google Scholar
  86. [89]
    Ruse, M. Functional Statements in Biology. Phil. Sci 38 (1971): 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. [90]
    Ruse, M. A Reply to Wright’s Analysis of Functional Statements. Phil. Sci 40 (1973): 277–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. [96]
    Ruse, M. Biological Adaptation. Phil. Sci. 39 (1971): 525–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. [101]
    Ruse, M. Sociobiology: Sense or Nonsense? Dordrecht 1979.Google Scholar
  90. [113]
    Ruse, M. Are There Laws in Biology? Australasian J. Phil. 48(1970:234–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. [20]
    Schaffner, K. Antireductionism and Molecular Biology. Science 157 (1967): 644–647 and in Munson [5], pp. 44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. [24]
    Schaffner, K. Approaches to Reduction.Phil. Sci 34 (1967): 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. [39]
    Schaffner, K. Theories and Explanation in Biology. J. Hist. Biol. 2 (1969): 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. [40]
    Schaffner, K. Chemical Systems and Chemical Evolution: The Philosophy of Molecular Biology. Amer. Sci 57 (1969): 410–420.Google Scholar
  95. [42]
    Schaffner, K. Correspondence Rules. Phil. Sci 36 (1969): 280–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. [44]
    Schaffner, K. The Watson-Crick Model and Reductionism. Brit. J. Phil. Sci 20 (1969): 325–348 and in Grene and Mendelsohn [11], pp. 101–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. [48]
    Schaffner, K. Reduction in Biology: Prospects and Problems. In R.S. Cohen et al. (Eds.),PSA 1974, pp. 613–632. Dordrecht 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. [53]
    Schaffner, K. Reduction, Reductionism, Values, and Progress in the Biomedical Sciences. In R. Colodny (Ed.), Logic, Laws, and Life, pp. 143–171. Pittsburgh 1977.Google Scholar
  99. [60]
    Schaffner, K. The Peripherally of Reductionism in the Development of Molecular Biology. J. Hist. Biol. 7 (1974): 111–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. [16]
    Scheffler, I. Thoughts on Teleology, Brit. J. Phil. Sci 9 (1959): 265–284, and in Canfield [3], pp. 48–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. [63]
    Shapere, D. Scientific Theories and their Domains. In F. Suppe (Ed.), The Structure of Scientific Theories. Urbana 1974.Google Scholar
  102. [6]
    Simon, M.A. The Matter of Life. New Haven 1971.Google Scholar
  103. [118]
    Simon, T.W. A Cybernetic Analysis of Goal-Directedness. In F. Suppe and P.D. Asquith (Eds.), PSA 1976, pp. 56–67. Ann Arbor 1976.Google Scholar
  104. [102]
    Simpson, G.G. The Major Features of Evolution. New York 1953.Google Scholar
  105. [23]
    Sklar, L. Types of Inter-theoretic Reduction. Brit. J. Phil. Sci 18 (1967): 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. [112]
    Smart, J.J.C. Between Philosophy and Science. New York 1968.Google Scholar
  107. [115]
    Smart, J.J.C. Under the Form of Eternity. The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research Annual Review (1976) 36–42.Google Scholar
  108. [119]
    Sommerhoff, G. Analytical Biology. London 1950.Google Scholar
  109. [105]
    Stebbins, G.L. Tautology, Circularity, and Biological Theory. Amer. Nat. 110(1976): 386–390.Google Scholar
  110. [83]
    Taylor, C.T. The Explanation of Behavior. London 1964.Google Scholar
  111. [62]
    Toulmin, S. Human Understanding. Princeton 1972.Google Scholar
  112. [21]
    van Bergeijk, W.A. Reductionism and Real Biology. Science 158 (1967): 857–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. [8]
    van der Steen, W.J. Inleiding tot de wijsbegeerte van de biologic Utrecht 1973.Google Scholar
  114. [87]
    van der Steen, W.J. Hempeps View on Functional Explanation: Some Critical Comments. Acta Biotheoretica 20 (1971): 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. [22]
    Weiser, W. Reductionism and Real Biology. Science 158 (1967): 859–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. [103]
    Williams, M.B. The Logical Structure of Functional Explanations in Biology. In F. Suppes and P.D. Asquith (Eds.), PSA 1976, Vol. 1, pp. 37–46. Ann Arbor 1976.Google Scholar
  117. [109]
    Williams, M.B. The Logical Status of Natural Selection and Other Evolutionary Controversies. In M. Bunge (Ed.), The Methodological Unity of Science, pp. 84–102. Dordrecht 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. [27]
    Wimsatt, W. Reductionism, Levels of Organization, and the Mind-Body Problem. In G.G. Globus et al. (Eds.), Consciousness and the Brain: A Scientific and Philosophical Inquiry, pp. 199–267. New York 1976.Google Scholar
  119. [28]
    Wimsatt, W. Reduction and Reductionism. In P.D. Asquith and H.E. Kyburg (Eds.), Current Research in Philosophy of Science. Ann Arbor 1979.Google Scholar
  120. [36]
    Wimsatt, W. Reductive Explanation: A Functional Account. In R.S. Cohen et al. (Eds.), PSA 1974, pp. 671–710. Dordrecht 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. [78]
    Wimsatt, W. Teleology and the Logical Status of Function Statements. Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 3 (1972): 1–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. [94]
    Wimsatt, W. Complexity and Organization. In K. Schaffner and R.S. Cohen (Eds.), PSA 1972, pp. 67–86. Dordrecht 1974 and in Grene and Mendelson [11], pp. 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. [117]
    Wimsatt, W. Some Problems with the Concept of ‘Feedback’. In R.C. Buck and R.S. Cohen (Eds.), PSA 1970, pp. 241–256. Dordrecht 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. [75]
    Woodfield, A. Teleology. Cambridge 1976.Google Scholar
  125. [82]
    Wright, L. Function. Phil. Rev. 82(1973): 139–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. [84]
    Wright, L. Explanation and Teleology. PM. Sci. 39 (1972): 204–218.Google Scholar
  127. [88]
    Wright, L. A Comment on Ruse’s Analysis of Function Statements. Phil. Sci. 39 (1972): 512–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. [91]
    Wright, L. Teleological Explanation. Berkeley 1976.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague/Boston/London 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • David L. Hull
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations