Philosophy in the laboratory: The debate over evidence for E.J. Steele's Lamarckian hypothesis

Parascandola, Mark

doi:10.1016/0039-3681(95)00012-c

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Episodes that called into question scientific credibility and the epistemological status of experimental observation and replication-such as the much-publicized debate about E. J. Steele's evidence for somatic selection in the late 1970s and early 1980s-saw Koestler acting alongside Medawar, Karl Popper and others as a respected arbiter and scientific commentator. 102 The approach to biology promoted by Koestler drew on the long tradition of holistic thought from Virchow's concept of the 'cell state', through to Gestalt psychology and the many manifestations of holistic thought in interwar German science identified by Anne Harrington. 103 A deeper understanding of the reinterpretation by Koestler and others of this approach to living systems sheds new light on how anti-reductionist thought was reconfigured at a time of increasing dominance for molecular, mechanistic explanations of biological phenomena.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Anti-reductionism at the confluence of philosophy and science: Arthur Koestler and the biological periphery

Stark¹

2016

Notes Rec.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Hungarian-born intellectual Arthur Koestler produced a wide-ranging corpus of written work throughout the mid twentieth century. Despite being the subject of two huge biographies in recent years, his long-standing engagement with numerous scientific disciplines remains unexplored. This paper situates Koestler's scientific philosophy within the context of mid-twentieth-century science and explores his relationship with key figures, including Dennis Gábor, C. H. Waddington, Ludwig von Bertalanffy and J. R. Smythies. The argument presented is threefold. First, surprisingly, serious scientists, particularly in the biological sciences, took Koestler's scientific work seriously; second, despite Koestler's best efforts, his allies could not agree on a single articulation of anti-reductionism; and third, the reductionist/anti-reductionist debates of the mid twentieth century constituted a battle for the authority to speak on behalf of ‘science’ that led Koestler into direct conflict with figures including Peter Medawar. By exploring the community associated with Koestler, the paper sheds new light on the status of scientific authority and the relationship between scientists’ metaphysical beliefs and their practices.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%