This paper discusses some philosophical and historical connections between, and within, nineteenth century evolutionism and microscopical research. The principal actors are mainly Darwin, Schleiden, Whewell and the “London Doctors,” Arthur Henfrey and Edwin Lankester. I demonstrate that the apparent alliances—particularly Darwin/Schleiden (through evolutionism) and Schleiden/Whewell (through Kantian philosophy of science)—obscure the deep methodological differences between evolutionist and microscopical biology that lingered on until the mid-twentieth century. Through an understanding of the little known significance of Schleiden’s programme of microscopical research and (...) by comparing certain features of his methodology to the activities of the “London Doctors,” we can identify the origin of this state of affairs. In addition, the outcome provides an insight into a critique of Buchdahl’s view on Schleiden’s philosophical conception. (shrink)

Reliabilist philosophy of science considers scientific misconduct a transgression against the principles of good cognitive practice. Good practice in research is characterised by the reliability, efficiency and fertility of the cognitive processes involved. The reliabilist approach is closely connected to the idea of mutual cognitive dependency of the research community. Trust in the testimony of others is not an inevitable but a favouring factor of scientific progress — and misconduct damages the testimonial chain, respectively the principle of trustworthiness. Within the (...) reliabilist framework, the main focus on questionable research is not on whether or not there are fraudulent intentions , but on recognisable consequences for the research community. Criticising the constructivist modeling of questionable research, we reconstruct certain contributions by Emil Abderhalden, Richard Goldschmidt, Franz Moewus, and Ernst Waldschmitz-Leitz as serious misconducts respectively frauds. We also show that specific social factors — often regarded as “apologising” conditions — decisively interfere with the principle of trustworthiness in the scientific community. (shrink)

This article opens with general and historical remarks on philosophy of science's problems with the concept of discovery. Then, drawing upon simple examples of Watson's and Crick's non-philosophical usage, I characterize phrases of the type "x discovers y" semantically. It will subsequently be shown how widespread philosophical discussion on discovery violates the semantic constraints of phrases of the type "x discovers y." Then I provide a philosophical reconstruction of "x discovers y" that is in keeping with the "folk" notion of (...) discovery. The philosophical ingredients of this approach are taken from a certain aspect of action theory and from epistemological reliabilism. The approach draws upon the concept of superior action and connects this concept to progressive research. In contrast to normal actions, superior actions are primarily explained by competencies. This perspective includes reminders of what some nineteenth-century philosopher-scientists had advocated as a competence-oriented view on scientific research. Finally, this approach is applied to the case of Watson's and Crick's discovery. (shrink)

1474 wird in Basel ein stolzer Jiingling, angeklagt. Die Meinung der Experten ist eindeu­ tig. Es liege ein lusus naturae der iibelsten Sorte vor, ein wahrhaftes crimen, veriibt durch Hexerkraft. Die feierliche Hinrichtung findet wie iiblich vor einer begeisterten Menge auf dem Rathausplatz statt. Bei dem Angeklagten handelt es sich urn einen kleinen Hahn, be­ schuldigt und iiberfiihrt, ein Ei gelegt zu haben. l Die Zeiten iindem sich und die Expertenmeinungen mit ihnen. Die meisten Menschen aufgeklarterer Epochen wiirden wohl einiges (...) darauf wetten, daB der Hahn unschuldig sein und ein SpaBvogel ihm das Ei unterlegt haben miisse. Bemerkenswerterweise ist diese Ansicht nicht begriindeter als die der Baseler Richter. Die Hiihnerkunde des 20. Jahrhun­ derts hat diverse Exemplare von Gallus L. nachgewiesen, die aussahen wie Hiihne und sich als Hennen heraustellten; weitere Dberraschungen sind nicht auzuschlieBen. Der Baseler Fall gehOrt nicht zu den Themen besonderer Dignitiit, birgt aber im klei­ nen alles, was Wissenschaftsphilosophie zu beunruhigen wie auch zu inspirieren verrnag: wechselnde Auffassungen, vermeintliche Evidenzen, strittige Schliisse und unklare Ver­ hiiltnisse zwischen Wissenschaft und Gemeinwesen. Das Ergebnis solcher geschichtlicher Irritationen flillt entsprechend aus. Es gibt keine Philosophic der Wissenschaftsgeschichte in der Gestalt einer Disziplin, gegeben ist ein Themenfeld, dessen wichtigste Ordnungs­ strukturen derzeit durch Kontroversstellungen gebildet werden. (shrink)

Am Beispiel eines neueren einschlägigen Themenbeitrages werden einige der Gründe dafür herausgestellt, daß die Bemühungen um eine Theorie der Literaturwissenschaft bisher kaum zu überzeugenden Ergebnissen geführt haben. Es handelt sich hierbei insonderheit um die Verwechslung von Methodenlehre und praktizierter Methode, die Nichtunterscheidung normativer und deskriptiver Aspekte sowie die unzulässige Ineinssetzung von philologischer Arbeit und großzügig verfahrender Textauslegung. In diesem Zusammenhang wird an die alexandrinischen Anfänge der Literaturwissenschaft erinnert, in denen die Interpretation als abschließende Überhöhung verbindlicher und empirisch ausgewiesener Kleinarbeit begriffen (...) wurde. (shrink)

Summary It is well known that Hempels ‘classical’ approach to scientific explanation leads to a lot of difficulties with regard to the real world of inquiry, especially to that of the humanities. Seen against this background alternative views on explanation have become more and more attractive during the last years. The present paper deals with a recent contribution made by O. Schwemmer (a representative of the ‘Erlanger Schule’). His conception of explanation is explicitly meant to apply to the actual practice (...) of the humanities. Contradicting Schwemmer's own claim it is argued that his logic of explanation is not applicable and not relevant to the work of the humanities. The examples are taken from philology. (shrink)

In an illuminating article A. Kamlah considers philosophy of science as an activity leading step by step from neutral descriptions to rational prescriptions. What his remarks do not offer us is a way of dealing with the troublesome ambiguities we find in the analyses provided by those philosophers of science who refuse to say whether they legislate how scientists should behave or describe how they do. In this context I want to draw attention to a helpful distinction H. A. Simon (...) has made. (shrink)

Problems, Phenomena, Explanatory Approaches Who is a German-Jewish Scientist? 1. The Einstein case and its paradoxes On 14 March 1929, Albert Einstein's ...

Following Mr. Bixby and some other 19th century scientist-philosophers such as Claude Bernard, relevant scientific actions should, as a matter of primary importance, be explained with reference to the competence and not to the intentions of those involved. The background is a reliabilist virtue approach - a widespread tendency in 19th century epistemology and philosophy of science. Bixby's approach includes a critique of some constructivist arguments and establishes a mutually supportive connection to conceptions of scientific progress.

Following Mr. Bixby and some other 19th century scientist-philosophers such as Claude Bernard, relevant scientific actions should, as a matter of primary importance, be explained with reference to the competence and not to the intentions of those involved. The background is a reliabilist virtue approach - a widespread tendency in 19th century epistemology and philosophy of science. Bixby's approach includes a critique of some constructivist arguments and establishes a mutually supportive connection to conceptions of scientific progress.

This paper is an attempt to establish a general perspective on approaching the philosophy of philology historically. Part I examines the problem of relating history to philosophy of philology, with a view to stressing the importance of historical intuitions about the discipline. It is asserted that such intuitions do not exist for the whole range of philological activities but only for a certain kind. Part II gives a brief survey on the beginnings of philology in the Hellenistic Age in order (...) to make plausible a distinction between two types of philological research: working within a 'grammatical' framework on the one hand, and working within a 'critical' framework on the other. Part III includes a list of some strong historical intuitions about progressive developments in philology of the 'grammatical' kind, that could function as touchstones for appraising philosophical models. In the sequel, attention is drawn to the most important types of viewing progress in science. None of them is regarded as the philosophy of philology in question, but they all appear more in tune with our historical intuitions than the prevailing relativism. (shrink)

This paper is an attempt to establish a general perspective on approaching the philosophy of philology historically. Part I examines the problem of relating history to philosophy of philology, with a view to stressing the importance of historical intuitions about the discipline. It is asserted that such intuitions do not exist for the whole range of philological activities but only for a certain kind. Part II gives a brief survey on the beginnings of philology in the Hellenistic Age in order (...) to make plausible a distinction between two types of philological research: working within a ‘grammatical’ framework on the one hand, and working within a ‘critical’ framework on the other. Part III includes a list of some strong historical intuitions about progressive developments in philology of the ‘grammatical’ kind, that could function as touchstones for appraising philosophical models. In the sequel, attention is drawn to the most important types of viewing progress in science. None of them is regarded as the philosophy of philology in question, but they all appear more in tune with our historical intuitions than the prevailing relativism. (shrink)

Not only the public debate about science but even the way scientists conceive their own work is to some extent determined by cultural images. In the case of synthetic biology, literary figures like the Golem of Prague and its successors, such as Frankenstein’s monster, seem to suggest themselves. This article reconstructs some cognitive structures underlying the surface of metaphorical thinking and shows how talking about synthetic biology as similar to Golem-making obscures important onto- logical, pragmatic, and ethical differences.

This paper discusses some philosophical and historical connections between, and within, nineteenth century evolutionism and microscopical research. The principal actors are mainly Darwin, Schleiden, Whewell and the "London Doctors," Arthur Henfrey and Edwin Lankester. I demonstrate that the apparent alliances—particularly Darwin/Schleiden (through evolutionism) and Schleiden/Whewell (through Kantian philosophy of science)—obscure the deep methodological differences between evolutionist and microscopical biology that lingered on until the mid-twentieth century. Through an understanding of the little known significance of Schleiden's programme of microscopical research and (...) by comparing certain features of his methodology to the activities of the "London Doctors," we can identify the origin of this state of affairs. In addition, the outcome provides an insight into a critique of Buchdahl's view on Schleiden's philosophical conception. (shrink)