Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:12:58.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are Pictures Really Necessary? The Case of Sewell Wright’s “Adaptive Landscapes”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Michael Ruse
Michael Ruse*
Affiliation:
University of Guelph
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Biologists are remarkably visual people. Yet, the classics of logical empiricism never raised the general question of scientific illustration. Moreover, one suspects that the silence was, if anything, actively hostile. People did not talk about biological illustration, because they did not judge it to be part of “real science”. This enterprise produces statements or propositions, ideally embedded in a formal system. It may be about the real world, but it is not in any sense of the real world, in being a copy or mirror image. Philosophers recognized that regretfully human weakness demanded the visual. But it was judged at best a prop. (See, for instance, Braithwaite 1953, Hempel 1965, and Bunge 1967; although see also Achinstein 1968. The best discussion of scientific illustration that I know is Rudwick 1976.)

Type
Part III. Biology: The Non-Propositional Side
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1990 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1990 , 1990 , pp. 62 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1991

References

Achinstein, P. (1968), Concepts of Science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Bergson, H. (1912), Creative Evolution. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, R. (1953), Scientific Explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bunge, M. (1967),“Analogy in quantum theory: from insight to nonsense”. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 18, 265–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobzhansky, T: (1937), (3rd ed. 1951) Genetics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. (1930), The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S.J. (1989), Wonderful Life. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. (1965), Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. (1966), Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R., Moore, J., Provine, W, and Wallace, B. eds. (1981), Dobzhansky’s Genetics of Natural Populations. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1959), “Where are we?” Cold Spring Harbór Symposium on Quantitative Biology. 24, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provine, W. (1986), Sewell Wright and Evolutionary Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rudwick, M. (1976), “The emergence of a visual language for geological science 1760-1840” History of Science. XIV, 149-95.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. (1944), Tempo and Mode in Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. (1953), The Major Features of Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stebbins, G. (1967), The Basis of Progressive Evolution. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Williams, G. (1966), Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. (1975), Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1931), “Evolution in Mendelian populations”, Genetics. 16, 97–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (1932), “The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection in evolution”. Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Genetics. 1, 356–66.Google Scholar