The mechanistic theory of life.--Criticism of the mechanistic theory.--Biology and the physical sciences.--Personality.

Illustrates various basic principles and unifying concepts in the philosophy of science as the author has discovered them in his career.

Nach einer kurzen Übersicht überDescartes' mechanistiche Theorie der somatischen Funktionen und der Reproduktion, wird in der vorliegenden Arbeit die Entwicklung dieser Theorie bis zur neuesten Zeit beschrieben. Sodann wird eine Übersicht gegeben über die vitalistische Theorie, welche unter wissenschaftlichen Forschern bis zur Mitte des vorigen Jahrhunderts vorherrschte. Dann werden die Gründe dafür angegeben, dass diese Theorie des Vitalismus ungefähr um diese Zeit verlassen wurde, um durch die mechanistische Theorie ersetzt zu werden. Diese ihrerseits ist jedoch auf einer unbegründeten metaphysischen Auffassung (...) vom Wesen der Wirklichkeit aufgebaut. Nehmen wir sie an, so können wir die synthetischen Einheit, die Gesamterscheinungsreihe, die wir unter dem Namen Reproduktion und Körperfunktion zusammenfassen, nicht richtig beschreiben. Der Begriff „Leben” ist eine Synthese aller Beziehungen, die zwischen dem Organismus und seiner Umwelt bestehen. Diese Auffassung des Lebens ist die Grundlage der Biologie, daher ist denn auch Biologie eine selbständige, unabhängige Wissenschaft.Zuletzt wird der Reflexbegriff behandelt. Die mechanistische Auffassung des Reflexbegriffes ist unrichtig, da alle Reflexfunktion synthetischen, oder integrativen Charakter hat. Wäre dem nicht so, dann würde das Nervensystem lediglich Chaos hervorzubringen imstande sein. Biologie, ohne die Gegebenheit des Lebens vorauszusetzen, ist unmöglich und wissenschaftliches Voraussagen auf dem Gebiete der Biologie ist überall nur auf Grund dieser Voraussetzung möglich.Après avoir donné un bref aperçu de la théorie mécanique cartésienne de l'activité corporelle et de la reproduction, l'article contenu dans cette revue trace le développment de cette théorie jusqu'à notre temps. Un bref aperçu est donné ensuite de la théorie vitaliste qui prévalait parmi les observateurs scientifiques jusqu'au milieu du siècle dernier. Après cela sont exposées les raisons pour lesquelles la théorie du vitalisme fut abandonnée de nos jours et il est démontré, qu'il est généralement admis que l'abandon de cette théorie implique l'adoption de la conception mécanique. Cette conception, cependant, est basée sur une conception métaphysique mal fondée se rapportant à la nature de la réalité et, en l'acceptant, nous ne pouvons exprimer ou décrire l'intégration qui apparait dans les phénomènes de reproduction et d'activité corporelle de toutes sortes. La vie c'est l'intégration soutenue s'étendant sur toutes les relations entre l'organisme et son entourage; et la conception de la vie, c'est la base de la biologie, de sorte que la biologie est une science indépendant.l'Article termine par une discussion de l'action-réflexe et démontre qu'une interprétation mécanique de l'action-réflexe est inadéquate, puisque l'intégration est incluse dans toute action-réflexe; car si tel n'était pas le cas, le système nerveux ne serait autre chose qu'un mécanisme à produire du chaos. La biologie ne peut pas se passer de la vie, comme sa conception fondamentale, et les prédicitions en matière de biologie sont toujours basées sur cette conception. (shrink)

John Burdon Sanderson Haldane was a giant among men. He made major contributions to genetics, population biology, and evolutionary theory. He was at once comfortable in mathematics, chemistry, microbiology and animal physiology. But it was his belief in education that led to his preparing his popular essays for publication. In his own words: "Many scientific workers believe that they should confine their publications to learned journals. I think that the public has a right to know what is going on (...) inside the laboratories, for some of which it pays." So begins Haldane's collection of essays, perhaps the most public intellectual communicating science before the writings of Stephen Jay Gould. The first part of the volume emphasizes the important developments in biology and natural science in the first quarter of the century. As such, it provides a benchmark for studies of the next three quarters of the century. In an unusual introduction, Price takes the readers through their paces, discussing the situation then and now in vitamins, oxygen want, disease controls, and the rewards of science as such. This is followed by Haldane's views on society, art, religion and economy as seen through the eyes of a politically alert major scientist. The editor provides readers unfamiliar with Haldane with a carefully rendered chronology of a life that began in 1892 and that spanned much of the present century. Despite ideas on race, class and politics that have seen better times, Haldane was truly exceptional in translating the science of his time into ideas that "everyman" could readily grasp. His predictions on what science would achieve were on target far more often than not. But even his failed predictions are perhaps the most interesting of all. They throw into sharp relief the truly novel and revolutionary developments in science over the past 75 years. J.B.S. Haldane held many positions and received many honors during his lifetime. But for most of the period covered in this volume, he was the William Dunn Reader in Biochemistry at Cambridge University. He simultaneously served as Fellow of New College, in Oxford University's Horticultural Institute. Carl A. Price served until 1999 as professor IIof plant molecular biology in the Waksman Institute of Microbiology at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. He also served as the editor of Plant Molecular Biology Reporter from 1983 until 1997. This is the first volume in a new series on the history and theory of science. (shrink)

In this volume, the sixth in Blackwell's Great Debates in Philosophy series, Smart and Haldane discuss the case for and against religious belief. The debate is unusual in beginning with the negative side. After a short jointly authored introduction, there is a fairly extended presentation of the atheist position by Smart. Haldane then offers an equally extended defense of theism. The authors respond to one another in the same order, and the book concludes with a brief co-authored treatment (...) of antirealism, which both reject. The discussion is broad-ranging, in part reflecting the size of the topic. It addresses the existence of God and the problem of evil, along with related issues having to do with God's nature and his involvement with the world: necessary being, eternity versus sempiternity, the relation between divine sovereignty and human freedom, and the possibility of miracles. But there is also discussion of subjects having to do with revealed religion, such as the reliability of scripture, and the roles of faith and reason in the life of the believer. The fact that the book commences with the case for atheism also contributes to its scope, since without a specific version of theism on which to focus, Smart has to aim broadly. The result is that topics that might otherwise have been ignored—moral arguments, and Pascal's wager, to cite two—are at least broached, though not pursued. (shrink)

This book, first published in 1938, is based on the Muirhead Lectures given at Birmingham University in February and March of 1937. The first half of this book is mainly devoted to an exposition of the principles of genetics, whilst the second half deals with more controversial topics, with the text providing an insight into the ideology of the time. This title will be of interest to students of politics and history.

Woodger's substitution of the "allegedly more precise term 'an environmentally insensitive set of lives'" for the term 'an inborn character' is discussed by haldane. He proposes that "woodger's definitions do not appear to have reached precision." (staff).

Biologists have as yet taken but little cognizance of the revolution in human thought which has been inaugurated by physicists in the last five years, and philosophers have stressed its negative rather than its positive side.