Abstract
Gaining momentum during the last third of the twentieth century, the philosophy of biology is now a distinct field with its own debates, journals, audiences, and professional societies. This professionalization came along with the forging of an intellectual identity based on the existence of disciplinary frontiers that demarcated philosophy of biology from neighboring disciplines such as philosophy of medicine, history of biology, or general philosophy of science. Here, I argue that the identity of this emerging philosophy of biology also excluded Continental traditions often called “biological philosophy” or “historical epistemology of the life sciences”. Going back to the 60s and 70s, I explore the emergence of the philosophy of biology at a time when its identity was still in flux and its analytic orientation debated. To do so, I focus primarily on the works of David Hull and Marjorie Grene, and I draw on their unpublished correspondence. Although Grene’s intellectual contribution to the philosophy of biology has been widely acknowledged, her coming from a different philosophical universe created tensions with the identity Hull and others sought to establish. Overall, this chapter raises a question about the historical conditions that make fields such as the philosophy of biology possible, and calls attention to the exclusions that permeated the philosophy of biology from its inception and what this involves in terms of the proper relation between philosophy and science, especially biology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
In Werner Callebaut’s view, “philosophy of biology started not with Aristotle, or Spinoza, or Kant, or even Claude Bernard, but with Darwin […]” (2005, 93). Callebaut saw no reason to “invok[e] a pre-Darwinian philosopher – transcendental stance included – to shed light on contemporary debates” (Ibid., 114). For a response from a Kantian perspective: Kolen and Van de Vijver (2007).
- 2.
While evolutionary theory raises interesting philosophical issues, this growing interest in evolutionary theory in the 80s and 90s could be connected to the fact that several philosophers of biology came through “Lewontin’s lab” at Harvard (Smocovitis, 1996, 41).
- 3.
The term “biophilosophy” is often used in the German context (“Biophilosophie”) rather than the French “philosophie biologique” (Gayon, 2009a; Köchy, 2008). In the strict sense, one should also distinguish between “biological philosophy” and “philosophical biology”. On this: Ebke (this volume). On Continental philosophy of science: Gutting (2005), Méthot (2020).
- 4.
The unpublished correspondence of Hull is in the David L. Hull Papers, 1965–2004, ASP 2005.01 in the Archives of Scientific Philosophy, Archives & Special Collections at the University of Pittsburgh Library System. Other unpublished sources in this paper include materials from the Fonds Canguilhem at the Centre d’Archives en Philosophie, Histoire et Éditions des sciences (CAPHÉS) at the École Normale Supérieure; the Indiana University Department of History and Philosophy of Science Records; and the Archives of the Illinois Wesleyan University.
- 5.
https://believermag.com/an-interview-with-marjore-grene/; on Hull: Sect. 2.
- 6.
As Canguilhem put it: “Par philosophie de type biologique nous entendons une philosophie qui tire d’une vision du phénomène vital pris dans son originalité des sources d’inspiration et des thèmes de réflexions” (1946–1948; CAPHÉS, GC. 12.1.8, fol. 15). Canguilhem’s papers are located in the CAPHÉS (ENS, Paris). References to Canguilhem’s notes and manuscripts (GC) are followed by box and page numbers (fol.). On Canguilhem’s biological philosophy: Limoges (2015, 2018), Sholl (2016), and Méthot (2020).
- 7.
The relation between history and philosophy of science has developed differently in English-speaking and French or German traditions but I cannot address this complex issue here.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
Richard Burian and Jane Maienschein were closely involved in the writing of the by-laws of ISHPSSB, which were finalized in London, Ontario, in 1989 (Burian, 2009, 186).
- 11.
“Buck”, Hull Papers, ASP 2005.1, box 7, folder 4, undated.
- 12.
“Buck”, Hull Papers, ASP 2005.1, box 7, folder 4, undated.
- 13.
“Buck”, Hull Papers, ASP 2005.1, box 7, folder 4, undated.
- 14.
David L. Hull, Transcript of Record, Illinois Wesleyan University, The Registrar’s Office.
- 15.
On the history of this distinction in Mayr’s thought, see Witteveen (2015).
- 16.
Mayr to Hull, June 2nd 1966, Hull Papers, ASP 2005.1, box 35, folder 2. Hull was also in contact with Michael Ghiselin from the late 60s in the context of the debate about the species concept.
- 17.
Hull to Mayr, June 4th 1966, Hull Papers, ASP 2005.1, box 35, folder 2.
- 18.
Like Honenberger (2018, 296), however, I incline to think that the philosophy of biology as an academic discipline emerged in the sociological sense only after 1970.
- 19.
Ruse (1973) is a direct application of positivist approach to biology; Schaffner’s work on theory reduction in the sciences during the 60s and 70s has followed closely the path opened by Ernest Nagel, his thesis advisor, and Hempel; as to Rosenberg, he defined himself as a “positivist manqué” for keeping-up with the discovery/justification distinction (Rosenberg in Callebaut, 1993, 85).
- 20.
Smocovitis credits Lewontin with the view that Grene was the most influential figure and gives credit to Mayr in playing a key in shaping the philosophy of biology. But others would cite Lewontin as having played “the greatest role by permitting numerous workers to train in his lab” (Smocovitis, 1996, 105).
- 21.
As Honenberger points out, “nearly every text that either [Hull or Ruse] published from 1969 to 1975 appears to have been shared, and commented on at least partially, in correspondence” (2018, 292). Hull also commented on and shared drafts with William Wimsatt, Ken Schaffner, and many others.
- 22.
According to Callebaut, the levels of selection is “certainly the biggest [issue] in current philosophy of biology in sheer terms of investment in man – and woman power” (1993, 265).
- 23.
See the testimonies by Jane Maienschein, Robert J. Richards, and Christopher D. Horvath following Hull’s passing that were posted on the ISHPSSB website (Newsletter 2011).
- 24.
David Hull, Ken Schaffner, Michael Ruse, and William Wimsatt met in this PSA meeting and started corresponding with each other afterwards. Though each of them addressed topics in the philosophy of biology, they were not in the same session. The four men found themselves together again, and this time in a same session (on reductionism), at the 1974 PSA meeting. For reminiscences: Ruse (1993).
- 25.
In 1968, Hull also agreed to participate in a conference organized by Jaakko Hintikka, who planned on publishing the proceedings in Synthese. However, he was already in conversation with Mendelsohn about publishing WPOBIN in the Journal of the History of Biology. Since the audience of the two journals were different, Mendelsohn gave his permission that the paper be published in Synthese as well.
- 26.
Hull to Mendelsohn, November 19th 1968, Hull Papers, ASP 2005.1, box 36, folder 6.
- 27.
Hull to Mendelsohn, November 12th 1968, Hull Papers, ASP 2005.1, box 36, folder 6. Incidentally, Bunge did not adopt the term “philosophy of biology” and used “biophilosophy” instead, perhaps because of this clash with Hull, not because of the German use of the word. See Bunge (1979).
- 28.
Mendelsohn to Hull, November 27th, 1967, Hull Papers, ASP 2005.1, box 36, folder 6.
- 29.
Beckner, a student of Nagel, published several papers on the philosophy of biology but left the field before it took off the ground. As Hull’s letter to Mendelsohn indicates, he thought that Beckner “might have served as a catalyst for an unpsurge in the philosophy of biology” (Hull, 1994, 37). Hull tried to engage him in correspondence but his attempts “were met with no encouragement” (Ibid.).
- 30.
Hull to Mendelsohn, December 5th 1967, Hull Papers, ASP 2005.1, box 36, folder 6.
- 31.
Mendelsohn to Hull, December 15th 1967, Hull Papers, ASP 2005.1, box 36, folder 6.
- 32.
Mendelsohn to Hull, January 9th 1968, Hull Papers, ASP 2005.1, box 36, folder 6.
- 33.
Hull to Mendelsohn, January 17th 1968, Hull Papers, ASP 2005.1, box 36, folder 6.
- 34.
Mendelsohn to Hull, February 15th, 1968, Hull Papers, ASP 2005.1, box 36, folder 6.
- 35.
Hull to Mayr, September 30th; Mayr to Hull, October 11th 1968, Hull Papers, ASP 2005.1, box 35, folder 2.
- 36.
Hanson to Scriven, March 12th 1962, Indiana University Department of History and Philosophy of Science Records, box 4.
- 37.
As Smocovitis pointed out, the fact that contemporary philosophers of biology or biologists could not understand Woodger’s work, “does not in any manner prove that Woodger was not an influential source for biologists and philosophers in the 1930s” (1996, 105; Nicholson & Gawne, 2014). Even Hull later admitted that Woodger was “the most influential philosopher of biology at the time […]” (1998c, 79).
- 38.
As Godfrey-Smith (2010) observed in his obituary, Hull would have rejected the idea that all philosophical problems are scientific problems, contrary to Quine.
- 39.
- 40.
Hull to Grene, September 30th 1968, Hull Papers, ASP 2005.1, box 21, folder 1–2.
- 41.
In her “Intellectual biography”, Grene commented that she was asked to prepare a bibliography in the philosophy of biology and how this led her to discover “a number of writers, chiefly from the continent of Europe, whose work gave [her] a broader perspective on philosophical questions connected with biology” (2002, 18).
- 42.
Grene to Hull, October 3rd, 1968, Hull Papers, ASP 2005.1, box 21, folder 1–2.
- 43.
Hull to Grene, October 10th, 1968, Hull Papers, ASP 2005.1, box 21, folder 1–2. Hull most likely is referring to Karl R.E. von Hartmann.
- 44.
Schaffner’s unpublished paper is found in the Canguilhem Papers, CAPHÉS, G.C.22.5.
- 45.
Email from Schaffner to Méthot 2010/12/20.
- 46.
- 47.
Grene to Hull, February 10th 1976, Hull Papers, ASP 2005.1, box 21, folder 1–2.
- 48.
- 49.
Hull to Grene, September 14th 1999, Hull Papers, ASP 2005.1, box 21, folder 1–2.
- 50.
“[…] looking back at my introductory text [1974], it is no more radical than Ruse’s was. Perhaps we were not positivists, but we were close” (Hull, 2008, 24).
- 51.
Grene to Hull, June 8th, 1999, Hull Papers, ASP 2005.1, box 21, folder 1–2.
- 52.
Thomas Pradeu and Maël Lemoine have taken the relation between philosophy and biology a step further with the idea of a philosophy in science (or “PinS”). Starting from scientific (and not philosophical) problems, they argue that PinS uses philosophical methods not only to clarify scientific issues but to solve scientific problems and thus advance scientific knowledge (Pradeu et al., 2021).
- 53.
The interdisciplinary reading group in biology and philosophy at Chicago University in the late 60s-early 70s that brought together Hull, Schaffner, Wimsatt, Levins Lewontin and other scientists (Wimsatt, 1999), or Lewontin’s lab at Harvard in the 80s, where a number of philosophers stayed as postdocs, are obvious places to consider to trace the history of the philosophy of biology.
References
Aronova, E. (2009). In Search of The Soul in Science: Medical Ethics’ Appropriation of Philosophy of Science in the 1970s. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 31(1), 5–33.
Beckner, M. (1959). The Biological Way of Thought. Columbia University Press.
Bunge, M. (1979). Some Topical Problems in Biophilosophy. Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 2, 155–172.
Burian, R. (1986). The ‘Internal Politics’ of Biology and the Justification of Biological Theories. In A. Donagan & M. V. Wedin (Eds.), Human Nature and Natural Knowledge. Essays Presented to Marjorie Grene on the Occasion of her Seventy-Fifth Birthday (pp. 23–45). Reidel.
Burian, R. (2009). Marjorie Grene: A Remembrance With Special Attention to Her Importance for ISHPSSB. Biological Theory, 4, 183–187.
Burian, R., & Pitt, J. C. (Eds.). (1992). Synthese, 92(1), 3–166: special issue on The Thought of Marjorie Grene.
Byron, J. M. (2007). Whence Philosophy of Biology? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 58, 409–422.
Callebaut, W. (1993). Taking the Naturalistic Turn: Or How Real Philosophy of Science is Done. University of Chicago Press.
Callebaut, W. (2005). Again, What The Philosophy of Biology is Not. Acta Biotheoretica, 53, 93–122.
Canguilhem, G. (1988). Ideology and Rationality in the History of the Life Sciences (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). MIT Press.
Canguilhem, G. (1996 [1991]). The Normal and the Pathological (C. Fawcett & R.S. Cohen, Trans.). Zone Books.
Canguilhem, G. (2008 [1965/1952]). Knowledge of Life (S. Geroulanos & D. Ginsburg, Trans.). Fordham University Press.
Canguilhem, G. (2018 [1968]). Biologie et philosophie: publications européennes. In G. Canguilhem, Œuvres complètes, tome 5: Histoire des sciences, épistémologie, commémorations 1966–1995, ed. C. Limoges (pp. 315–328). Vrin.
Canguilhem, G. (2019 [1968]). L’objet de l’histoire des sciences. In G. Canguilhem, Œuvres complètes, tome 3: Écrits d’histoire des sciences et d’épistémologie, ed. C. Limoges (pp. 253–273). Vrin.
Chiaraviglio, L. (1968). Biology and Philosophy. In R. Klibansky (Ed.), Contemporary Philosophy: A Survey (pp. 376–386). La Nuova Italia Editrice.
Donovan, A., Perovich, A. N., Jr., & Wedin, M. V. (Eds.). (1986). Human Nature and Natural Knowledge. Essays Presented to Marjorie Grene on the Occasion of her Seventy-Fifth Birthday. Reidel.
Duchesneau, F. (1997). Philosophie de la biologie. Presses universitaires de France.
Gayon, J. (1998a). Philosophie et biologie. In Jean-François Mattei (Ed.), Encyclopédie philosophique universelle, vol. IV (Le Discours philosophique) (pp. 2152–2171). Presses universitaires de France.
Gayon, J. (1998b). The Concept of Individuality in Canguilhem’s Philosophy of Biology. Journal of the History of Biology, 31, 305–325.
Gayon, J. (1999). Nietzsche and Darwin. In J. Maienschein & M. Ruse (Eds.), Biology and the Foundation of Ethics (pp. 154–197). Cambridge University Press.
Gayon, J. (2004). À quoi servent les philosophes… de la biologie ? Interview with Michel Imbert and Jean-Jacques Perrier. Le vivant, 2.
Gayon, J. (2009a). The Philosophy of Biology: An Historico-Critical Characterization. In A. Brenner & J. Gayon (Eds.), French Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Contemporary Research in France (pp. 201–212). Springer.
Gayon, J. (2009b). Marjorie Grene: Personal Memories. Biological Theory, 4, 188–190.
Gayon, J., & Burian, R. M. (Eds.) (2006). Conceptions de la science: hier, aujourd’hui, demain. Hommage à Marjorie Grene. Ousia.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton.
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2010). David Hull. Biology and Philosophy, 25, 749–753.
Goldstein, K. (1934/1995). The Organism: A Holistic Approach to Biology Derived From Pathological Data in Man. American Book Company; reprint, Zone Books.
Goudge, T. A. (1961). The Ascent of Life. A Philosophical Study of the Theory of Evolution. University of Toronto Press.
Grau, K. T. (1999). Force and Nature. The Department of History and Philosophy of Science at Indiana University, 1960–1988. Isis, 90, 295–318.
Grene, M. (1963). Two Evolutionary Theories: A Reply. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 14(54), 152–154.
Grene, M. (1968). Approaches to a Philosophical Biology. Basic Books.
Grene, M. (1974). The Understanding of Nature. Essays in the Philosophy of Biology. Reidel.
Grene, M. (1976). To Have A Mind…. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 1(2), 177–199.
Grene, M. (1977). Philosophy of Medicine: Prolegomena to a Philosophy of Science. Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 2 [Symposia and Invited Papers] (pp. 77–93).
Grene, M. (1983). Philosophy of biology 1983: Problems and prospects. In R. B. Marcus, G. J. W. Dorn, & P. Weingartner (Eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science VII. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Salzburg 1983 (pp. 433–452). Elsevier.
Grene, M. (1997). Current Issues in the Philosophy of Biology. Perspectives on Science, 5, 255–281.
Grene, M. (2000). The Philosophy of Science of Georges Canguilhem: A Transatlantic View. Revue d’histoire des sciences, 53, 47–64.
Grene, M. (2002). Intellectual Biography. In R. E. Auxier & L. E. Hahn (Eds.), The Library of Living Philosophers, Vol. XXIV: The Philosophy of Marjorie Grene (pp. 4–28). Open Court.
Grene, M. (2006). La vie des sciences et les sciences de la vie. In J. Gayon & R. M. Burian (Eds.), Conceptions de la science : hier, aujourd’hui, demain. Hommage à Marjorie Grene (pp. 23–36). Ousia.
Grene, M., & Burian, R. M. (Eds.). (1983). Philosophy of Biology in the Philosophy Curriculum. The Council for Philosophical Studies.
Grene, M., & Everett, M. (Eds.). (1976). Topics in the Philosophy of Biology. Reidel.
Griffiths, P. E. (2000). Dedication. Biology and Philosophy 15, 299.
Gutting, G. (2005). Introduction: What is Continental Philosophy of Science? In G. Gutting (Ed.), Continental Philosophy of Science (pp. 1–16). Blackwell.
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 (pp. 351–363). Springer.
Honenberger, P. (2015). Grene and Hull on Types and Typological Thinking in Biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 50, 13–25.
Honenberger, P. (2018). Darwin Among the Philosophers: Hull and Ruse on Darwin, Herschel, and Whewell. HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 8, 278–309.
Hopwood, N. (2019). Inclusion and Exclusion in The History of Developmental Biology. Development, 146, 1–7.
Horder, T. J. (2013). David Hull’s Philosophical Contribution to Biology. In O. Harman & M. Dietrich (Eds.), Outsider Scientists. Routes to Innovation in Biology (pp. 238–255). Chicago University Press.
Hull, D. L. (1964). The Logic of Phylogenic Taxonomy (PhD. Dissertation). Indiana University.
Hull, D. L. (1969). What the Philosophy of Biology is Not. Journal of the History of Biology, 2, 241–268.
Hull, D.L. (Ed.) (1973). Darwin and his Critics. The Reception of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by the Scientific Commnuity. Harvard University Press.
Hull, D. L. (1974). Philosophy of Biological Science. Prentice-Hall.
Hull, D. L. (1979). Philosophy of Biology. In P. D. Asquith & H. E. Kyburg (Eds.), Current Research in Philosophy of Science. Proceedings of the P.S.a. Critical Research Problems Conference (pp. 421–435). East Lansing.
Hull, D. L. (1982). Philosophy and Biology. In G. Fløistad (Ed.), Contemporary Philosophy: A New Survey (Philosophy of science) (Vol. 2, pp. 281–316). Nijhoff.
Hull, D. L. (1994). Ernst Mayr’s Influence on the History and Philosophy of Biology: A Personal Memoir. Biology and Philosophy, 9, 375–386.
Hull, D. L. (1998a). Science as a Process. An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago University Press.
Hull, D. L. (1998b). A Mechanism and its Metaphysics: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Biology and Philosophy, 3, 123–155.
Hull, D. L. (1998c). The Role of Biology in Philosophy of Biology. In J. T. Suárez (Ed.), 1st International Conference on Philosophy of Science: Philosophy of Biology Today, Universiade de Vigo (pp. 75–94).
Hull, D. L. (2000). The Professionalization of Science Studies: Cutting Some Slack. Biology and Philosophy, 15, 61–91.
Hull, D. L. (2008). The History of the Philosophy of Biology. In M. Ruse (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Biology (pp. 11–33). Oxford University Press.
Hull, D. L., & Ruse, M. (Eds.). (1998). The Philosophy of Biology. Oxford University Press.
Hull, D. L., & Ruse, M. (Eds.). (2007). The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge University Press.
Huneman, P. (2019). Philosophy after Philosophy of Biology Before Biology. In C. Bognon-Küss & C. T. Wolfe (Eds.), Philosophy of Biology Before Biology (pp. 198–212). Routledge.
Jonas, H. (1966). The Phenomenon of Life. Toward a Philosophical Biology. Northwestern University Press.
Köchy, K. (2008). Biophilosophie. Zur Einführung. Junius Verlag.
Kolen, F., & Van de Vijver, G. (2007). Philosophy of Biology: Naturalistic or Transcendental? Acta Biotheoretica, 55, 35–46.
Laplane, L., Mantovani, P., Adolphs, R., et al. (2019). Opinion: Why Science Needs Philosophy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(10), 3848–3952.
Limoges, C. (2015). Introduction. Philosophie biologique, histoire des sciences et interventions philosophiques. Georges Canguilhem 1940–1965. In G. Canguilhem, Œuvres complètes, tome 4: Résistance, philosophie biologique et histoire des sciences, 1940–1965, ed. C. Limoges (pp. 7–48). Vrin.
Limoges, C. (2018). Introduction. La confirmation de l’historien des sciences et la mise à l’épreuve de sa philosophie biologique: Georges Canguilhem 1966–1995. In G. Canguilhem, Œuvres complètes, tome 5: Histoire des sciences, épistémologie, commémorations 1966–1995, ed. C. Limoges (pp. 7–60). Vrin.
Mayr, E. (1959). Where Are We? Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, 24, 1–14.
Mayr, E. (1969). Footnotes on the Philosophy of Biology. Philosophy of Science, 36, 197–202.
Mayr, E. (1996). Foreword. In G. Wolters & J. G. Lennox (Eds.), Concepts, Theories, and Rationality in the Biological Sciences (pp. vii–xi). University of Pittsburgh Press.
Mendelsohn, E. (1977). Editorial Note. In Canguilhem, The Normal and the Pathological (trans. C. R. Fawcett). Reidel.
Mendelsohn, E. (1985). The Origin of Life and the Materialism Problem. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 90(1), 15–28.
Méthot, P.-O. (2018). De l’épistémologie historique à la philosophie de la biologie: le double héritage philosophique de Jean Gayon. In F. Merlin & P. Huneman (Eds.), Philosophie, histoire, biologie : mélanges offerts à Jean Gayon (pp. 13–50). Éditions Matériologiques.
Méthot, P.-O. (2020). Introduction. Georges Canguilhem’s Critique of Biological Thought and Historical Epistemology. In P.-O. Méthot (Ed.), with the collaboration of J. Sholl, Vital Norms: Canguilhem’s The Normal and the Pathological in the Twentieth-First Century (pp. 13–51). Hermann.
Müller-Wille, S. (2011). Making Sense of Essentialism. Critical Quarterly, 53(4), 61–77.
Nicholson, D. J., & Gawne, R. (2014). Rethinking Woodger’s Legacy in the Philosophy of Biology. Journal of the History of Biology, 47, 243–292.
Nicholson, D. J., & Gawne, R. (2015). Neither Logical Empiricism nor Vitalism, but Organicism: What the Philosophy of Biology Was. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 37, 345–381.
Nye, M. J. (2011). Michael Polanyi and his Generation. Origins of the Social Construction of Science. University of Chicago Press.
Odenbaugh, J., & Griffiths, P. (2020). Philosophy of Biology. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2022 edition), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/biology-philosophy/.
Overmann, R. J. (2000). David Hull, Hod Carrier. Biology and Philosophy, 15, 311–320.
Pradeu, T. (2017). Thirty Years of Biology & Philosophy: Philosophy of Which Biology? Biology and Philosophy, 32, 149–167.
Pradeu, T., Lemoine, M., Khelfaoui, M., & Gingras, Y. (2021). Philosophy in Science: Can Philosophers of Science Permeate Through Science and Produce Scientific Knowledge? The British Journal for Philosophy of Science.
Ruse, M. (1973). The Philosophy of Biology. Hutchinson.
Ruse, M. (1989a). David Hull Through Two Decades. In M. Ruse (Ed.), What the Philosophy of Biology is: Essays Dedicated to David Hull (pp. 1–15). Kluwer.
Ruse, M. (Ed.). (1989b). What the Philosophy of Biology is: Essays Dedicated to David Hull. Kluwer.
Ruse, M. (1993). Booknotes. Biology and Philosophy, 8, 477–483.
Schaffner, K. (1973). ‘Normalité’ and Teleology in Modern Biology. Unpublished.
Scriven, M. (1959). Explanation and Prediction in Evolutionary Theory. Science, 130(3374), 477–482.
Scriven, M. (1969). Explanation in the Biological Sciences. Journal of the History of Biology, 2, 187–198.
Selye, H. (1967). In Vivo. The Case for Supramolecular Biology. Liveright Publishing.
Sholl, J. (2016). Escaping the Conceptual Analysis Straightjacket. Pathological Mechanisms and Canguilhem’s Biological Philosophy. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 58(4), 395–418.
Sloan, P. (2002). Reflections on the Species Problem: What Marjorie Grene Can Teach Us About a Perennial Issue. In R. E. Auxier & L. E. Hahn (Eds.), The Library of Living Philosophers, Vol. XXIV: The Philosophy of Marjorie Grene (pp. 225–255). Open Court.
Smocovitis, V. B. (1996). Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology. Princeton University Press.
Smocovitis, V. B. (2009). Marjorie, Matriarchy, and ‘Wretched Reflection’: A Personal Remembrance of Marjorie Grene. Biological Theory, 4, 191–195.
Sober, E. (1993). Philosophy of Biology. Westview Press.
Sterelny, K., & Griffiths, P. E. (1999). Sex and Death. An Introduction to Philosophy of Biology. University of Chicago Press.
Van der Klaauw, C. J. (1958). Biology and Philosophy. In R. Klibansky (Ed.), Philosophy in the Mid-Century (pp. 315–328). La Nuova Italia Editrice.
Van Speybroeck, L. (2007). Philosophy of Biology: About the Fossilization of Disciplines and other Embryonic Thoughts. Acta Biotheoretica, 55, 47–71.
Vincent, B. B. (2013). Discipline-Building in Synthetic Biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 44, 122–129.
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1967). Robots, Men, and Minds. Psychology in the Modern World. George Braziller.
Wimsatt, W. C. (1999). Appendix: In The Lab of a ‘Natural Philosopher’. Unpublished version.
Winsor, P. M. (2006). The Creation of The Essentialism Story: An Exercise in Metahistory. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 28, 149–174.
Witteveen, J. (2015). ‘A Temporary Oversimplification’: Mayr, Simpson, Dobzhansky, and the Origins of the Typological/Population Dichotomy (part 1 of 2). Studies in History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 54, 20–33.
Wolters, G. (2018). ‘Wrongful Life’ Reloaded: Logical Empiricism’s Philosophy of Biology 1934-1936 (Prague/Paris/Copenhagen). Philosophia Scientiae, 22(3), 233–255.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Charles Wolfe, Giuseppe Bianco, and Gertrudis Van de Vijver for their invitation to speak at the workshop on “Canguilhem and Continental Philosophy of Biology” held (online) on September 16-17 2021. I am especially grateful to Staffan Müller-Wille, Nick Hopwood, Jonathan Sholl, Betty Smocovitis, and Charles Wolfe for constructive feedback on an earlier draft of this chapter that significantly improved it. I also wish to thank Dick Burian, Philip Honenberger, Philippe Huneman, Katie Kendig, Camille Limoges, Laurent Loison, Ken Schaffner, Neeraja Sankaran, Philip Sloan, and Bill Wimsatt for helpful conversations about the topic of this paper. Lastly, I am happy to acknowledge the assistance of the following archivists: Jon Klosinski, at the Archives of Scientific Philosophy, Archives & Special Collections at the University of Pittsburgh; Dina Kellams and Isbell Mariah Sade, at Indiana University; Nathalie Queyroux at the Centre d’Archives en Philosophie, Histoire et Éditions des sciences (CAPHÉS) in Paris; and Meg Milner at The Tate Archives and Special Collections, the Ames Library, Illinois Wesleyan University, Bloomington, Illinois. Lastly, financial support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council in Canada is gratefully acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Méthot, PO. (2023). Analytic and Continental Approaches to Biology and Philosophy: David Hull and Marjorie Grene on ‘What Philosophy of Biology Is Not’. In: Bianco, G., Wolfe, C.T., Van de Vijver, G. (eds) Canguilhem and Continental Philosophy of Biology. History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences, vol 31. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20529-3_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20529-3_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-20528-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-20529-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)