09.03.2013 Views

3 The New York Years (1931–1953)

3 The New York Years (1931–1953)

3 The New York Years (1931–1953)

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Philosophy of Biology 363<br />

“<strong>The</strong> replacement of typological thinking by population thinking is perhaps the<br />

greatest conceptual revolution that has taken place in biology” (1963b: 5). Mayr’s<br />

conceptualization of population thinking is a, perhaps the, major contribution to<br />

the philosophy of biology. He mentioned population thinking for the first time in<br />

print in his textbook, Methods and Principles of Systematic Zoology (1953a; see<br />

above p. 321, also p. 312) and formally introduced this concept in his article on<br />

“Darwin and the evolutionary theory in biology” (1959b).<br />

During the 1950s, Mayr became acquainted with the literature of philosophy of<br />

science and was disappointed. This was a philosophy of logic, mathematics, and<br />

the physical sciences and had nothing to do with the concerns of biologists (1995j,<br />

1997b: XI). When Snow (1959) spoke of two cultures, science and humanities,<br />

physics was for him the exemplar for science. For some physicists “all biology<br />

is a dirty science” because nice clean laws without exceptions do not exist in<br />

large parts of biology. This reflects the nature of biological phenomena, but some<br />

workers thought that biology could be reduced completely to physics.<br />

<strong>The</strong> rise of a philosophy of biology began with the evolutionary synthesis as<br />

a contributing factor, when teleological and typological (essentialistic) concepts<br />

were eliminated from biology and continued especially during the 1960s with Mayr<br />

being a driving force. His books and articles in this field were mostly written from<br />

the point of view of evolutionary biology and provide a conceptual framework<br />

of biology and the basis for a new philosophy of science that incorporates the<br />

approaches of all sciences, including physics and biology. His publications in philosophy<br />

of biology were written in a lucid graceful style accessible to all interested<br />

biologists and knowledgeable persons. His main objectives were to help his readers<br />

to “gain a better understanding of our place in the living-world, and of our<br />

responsibility to the rest of nature” (1997b: XV).<br />

“<strong>The</strong> <strong>New</strong> versus the Classical in Biology”<br />

<strong>The</strong> above account documents the early origin of Mayr’s genuine interest in philosophical<br />

aspects of biology, particularly of systematics and evolution during the<br />

modern synthesis of the 1940s (“internal causation” of his interest). This interest<br />

grew stronger during the 1950s after he had joined the staff of the MCZ at Harvard<br />

University, when he dealt increasingly with general problems of evolutionary<br />

biology at a time when molecular biology, the new glamor field, threatened to dry<br />

up nearly all research funds available and classical organismic biology began to<br />

lose ground. Mayr became spokesman of systematics and evolutionary biology in<br />

the United States, especially after he had assumed the directorship of the MCZ in<br />

1961. He criticized the generally unbalanced situation in American science such<br />

as, for example, the replacement of seven of eight retiring professors of biology at<br />

Harvard University by molecular biologists. Anyone in a more traditional area of<br />

biology had considerable difficulties in attracting promising students, and whole<br />

fields, especially of invertebrate zoology, became depleted of specialists. In view<br />

of this situation he wrote an editorial on “<strong>The</strong> <strong>New</strong> versus the Classical in Biology”

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!