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