Axiomatic Natural Philosophy and the Emergence of Biology as a Science

Author:

van den Berg HeinORCID,Demarest Boris

Abstract

AbstractErnst Mayr argued that the emergence of biology as a special science in the early nineteenth century was possible due to the demise of the mathematical model of science and its insistence on demonstrative knowledge. More recently, John Zammito has claimed that the rise of biology as a special science was due to a distinctive experimental, anti-metaphysical, anti-mathematical, and anti-rationalist strand of thought coming from outside of Germany. In this paper we argue that this narrative neglects the important role played by the mathematical and axiomatic model of science in the emergence of biology as a special science. We show that several major actors involved in the emergence of biology as a science in Germany were working with an axiomatic conception of science that goes back at least to Aristotle and was popular in mid-eighteenth-century German academic circles due to its endorsement by Christian Wolff. More specifically, we show that at least two major contributors to the emergence of biology in Germany—Caspar Friedrich Wolff and Gottfried Reinhold Treviranus—sought to provide a conception of the new science of life that satisfies the criteria of a traditional axiomatic ideal of science. Both C.F. Wolff and Treviranus took over strong commitments to the axiomatic model of science from major philosophers of their time, Christian Wolff and Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, respectively. The ideal of biology as an axiomatic science with specific biological fundamental concepts and principles thus played a role in the emergence of biology as a special science.

Funder

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

History and Philosophy of Science,General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

Reference107 articles.

1. Albrecht, M. 2018. Wolff an den deutschsprachigen Universitäten. In Handbuch Christian Wolff, ed. R. Theis and A. Aichele, 427–465. Wiesbaden: Springer.

2. Anderson, R.L. 2005. The Wolffian Paradigm and Its Discontents: Kant’s Containment Definition of Analyticity in Historical Context. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 87: 22–74.

3. Bach, T. 2001. Biologie und Philosophie bei C.F. Kielmeyer und F.W.J. Schelling. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.

4. Beck, L.W. 1996. Early German Philosophy. Kant and His Predecessors. Bristol: Thoemmes.

5. Beiser, F. 2002. German Idealism: The Struggle Against Subjectivism, 1787–1801. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cited by 9 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. A semantic approach for the analysis of verbs in life sciences texts;Studia Neophilologica;2024-06-19

2. Explanation, teleology, and analogy in natural history and comparative anatomy around 1800: Kant and Cuvier;Studies in History and Philosophy of Science;2024-06

3. Induction and certainty in the physics of Wolff and Crusius;British Journal for the History of Philosophy;2024-01-18

4. The essentialism of early modern psychiatric nosology;History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences;2023-03-22

5. Vitalism and the Construction of Biology: A Historico-Epistemological Reflection;History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences;2023

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3