More on David Hull 4 Dec 20104 Oct 2017 There’s a special issue of Biology and Philosophy in the wings on the late David Hull. So far, the editorial introduction by Kim Sterelny and a fair summary of his work by Peter Godfrey-Smith have appeared Online First. Springer appear to be making these open access. Update: Michael Ruse’s memoir has been added. Biology Evolution Metaphysics Philosophy Science Social evolution EvolutionPhilosophy
Evolution The disconnect between biology and philosophers 20 Apr 2009 I sometimes worry about the lack of attention philosophers pay to actual biology, settling instead for purely verbal arguments. I am travelling right now so I don’t have time to carefully critique Jerry Fodor’s latest attack on “Darwinism”, but it seems that he is actually making the argument that natural… Read More
Evolution More non-avian feathered Chinese dinosaurs 13 Nov 2009 “The integumentary appendages seen in non-avian dinosaurs document a series of transitional forms from typical archosaurian scales to typical avian feathers.” From here. Fig. 4 Known feather morphotypes of non-avian dinosaurs A. morphotype 1, single filament; B. morphotype 2, multiple filaments joined basally; C. morphotype 3, multiple filaments jointed basally… Read More
The missing David Hull reference is : D.L. Hull 2008 Leon Croizat : A Radical Biogeographer, pp. 194-212 in O. Harman & M.R. Dietrich (eds) Rebels, Mavericks and Heretics in Biology, Yale University Press, New Haven & London. This is a very biased and inaccurate account that again “idealises” Gary Nelson and the New York school, and ignores completely the considerable influence that panbiogeography has had in Argentina, Brazil, Chile,Columbia, Cuba, Mexico and Venezuela. Hull also misses the point that mid-late 1970s New York school vicariance biogeography “evolved” into New York school “area cladistics” in the 1980s. Far more papers are published in peer reviewed journals using quantitative panbiogeographic methods originally developed by New Zealanders than are published using Nelson’s area cladistic method, so Hull gets it completely wrong once again. He also misses completely the key issue that Croizat was trying to think through “the colonial difference” and “decolonize” biology