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
Philosophy More on phenomena 9 Jun 201122 Jun 2018 Semifinalist for the 3 Quarks Daily Philosophy Prize 2011 In my last post, I asked whether there was a foundation for my view that species are extra-theoretical phenomena. I have done some further reading, especially Michela Massimi’s book Kant and Philosophy of Science Today, which I will have to buy…. Read More
Evolution The first phylogeny 30 Sep 202030 Sep 2020 The only diagram in the Origin is famously the hypothetical series of species forming a tree structure, but it isn’t an actual classification based on his principles. I have previously noted the rise of cladograms towards the end of the 19th century, but in a talk by Ian Hesketh, I was… Read More
Creationism and Intelligent Design The lying Origin 30 Oct 2009 How can you tell when a creationist is lying on TV? When their lips move… Ray Comfort has published an “edition” of the Origin of Species, with, of course, a 50 page “introduction” that repeats all the usual creationist lies. But to add insult to injury, he also excises some… 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