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
Administrative PZombies in Brisbane! 30 May 200818 Sep 2017 So we managed to attract 5 local PZombies (Craig, you are in trouble for not turning up!) on a wet Brisbane night. We had some interesting discussions (which I fear means that others listened to me nonstop) over beer. It’s nice to know that those of us who are in… Read More
Philosophy More civil insolence 22 Jan 2010 My disclaimer/policy on comments here has occasioned a bit of discussion on the tubes. Isis reckons that those who say it is a bad thing to piss on the rug will do it anyway when things get heated. Golden Thoughts compares this to the Civil Rights movement, and that those… Read More
Biology On abortion 9 Nov 2010 A fertilised fetus is a collection of cells that will, if all goes well, and it doesn’t in a large percentage of cases, become a baby. As much as 70% of all pregnancies may abort in the first 20 weeks, due to genetic or developmental defects. But up until a… 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