Explanation and demonstration in the Haller-Wolff debate

In Justin E. H. Smith (ed.), The Problem of Animal Generation in Early Modern Philosophy. Cambridge University Press (2006)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The theories of pre-existence and epigenesis are typically taken to be opposing theories of generation in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. One can be a pre-existence theorist only if one does not espouse epigenesis and vice versa. It has also been recognized, however, that the line between pre-existence and epigenesis in the nineteenth century, at least, is considerably less sharp and clear than it was in earlier centuries. The debate (1759-1777) between Albrecht von Haller and Caspar Friedrich Wolff on their theories of generation is usually taken to be a debate between a pre-existence theorist and an epigeneticist, and the supposed fact that these two theories of generation are mutually exclusive explains (so the story goes) the divide between Haller and Wolff. However, it’s not clear that Haller endorsed an especially robust form of pre-existence, and nor is it clear that Wolff’s theory of generation -- once he considered it carefully -- is clear epigenetic. Rather, Haller’s theory of generation is marked by traces of epigensis and Wolff’s theory has elements of pre-existence theory. This is not to say that their theories of generation are basically the same, but the debate between the two ought not to be framed in terms of pre-existence versus epigenesis. Their points of difference must be explained in some other way. In this way, their controversy bears characteristics of similar disputes over generation in the nineteenth century more than it resembles those in the seventeenth century. In this paper, I argue that (a) Haller’s and Wolff’s theories both blend elements from pre-existence and epigenesis; (b) but there are still deeply-rooted differences between the two generation theories; (c) one source of these differences is that Haller and Wolff have divergent conceptions of what an adequate explanation is; (d) we can see that they have different conceptions of what constitutes an adequate explanation by paying heed to their evaluations of Descartes’ epistemology and methodology in his theory of generation (such as it is); and (e) this shows that one of the main differences between Haller’s generation theory and that of Wolff is the degree to which each thinks we need to (and indeed can) explain the nature of the causes -- both efficient and final -- at play during the formation of organic beings.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

A critique of pure tolerance.Robert Paul Wolff - 1965 - Boston,: Beacon Press. Edited by Barrington Moore & Herbert Marcuse.
Constraining the adaptationism debate.Roger Sansom - 2003 - Biology and Philosophy 18 (4):493-512.
Virtuous Circles.Aldo Antonelli - 2000 - In Anil Gupta & Andre Chapuis (eds.), Circularity, Definition, and Truth. Indian Council of Philosophical Research.
The Limits of Explanation.Richard Swinburne - 1990 - Philosophy 27 (Supplement):177 - 193.
The Pragmatic Character of Explanation.Peter Achinstein - 1984 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1984:275 - 292.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
1,650 (#5,806)

6 months
97 (#40,016)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Karen Detlefsen
University of Pennsylvania

References found in this work

The Endurance of the Mechanism: Vitalism Controversy.Hilde Hein - 1972 - Journal of the History of Biology 5 (1):159 - 188.
Instruments of Judgment: Inscribing Organic Processes in Late Eighteenth-Century Germany.Joan Steigerwald - 2002 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 33 (1):79-131.
The history of embryology as intellectual history.Frederick B. Churchill - 1970 - Journal of the History of Biology 3 (1):155-181.
Machina Ex Deo: William Harvey and the Meaning of Instrument.Don Bates - 2000 - Journal of the History of Ideas 61 (4):577.

View all 6 references / Add more references