↓ Skip to main content

Neither logical empiricism nor vitalism, but organicism: what the philosophy of biology was

Overview of attention for article published in History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Neither logical empiricism nor vitalism, but organicism: what the philosophy of biology was
Published in
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40656-015-0085-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel J. Nicholson, Richard Gawne

Abstract

Philosophy of biology is often said to have emerged in the last third of the twentieth century. Prior to this time, it has been alleged that the only authors who engaged philosophically with the life sciences were either logical empiricists who sought to impose the explanatory ideals of the physical sciences onto biology, or vitalists who invoked mystical agencies in an attempt to ward off the threat of physicochemical reduction. These schools paid little attention to actual biological science, and as a result philosophy of biology languished in a state of futility for much of the twentieth century. The situation, we are told, only began to change in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when a new generation of researchers began to focus on problems internal to biology, leading to the consolidation of the discipline. In this paper we challenge this widely accepted narrative of the history of philosophy of biology. We do so by arguing that the most important tradition within early twentieth-century philosophy of biology was neither logical empiricism nor vitalism, but the organicist movement that flourished between the First and Second World Wars. We show that the organicist corpus is thematically and methodologically continuous with the contemporary literature in order to discredit the view that early work in the philosophy of biology was unproductive, and we emphasize the desirability of integrating the historical and contemporary conversations into a single, unified discourse.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 53 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Professor 7 13%
Researcher 7 13%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 4 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Philosophy 15 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 9%
Arts and Humanities 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 8 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 March 2024.
All research outputs
#14,647,754
of 25,443,857 outputs
Outputs from History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences
#290
of 500 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,580
of 290,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age from History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,443,857 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 500 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 290,881 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them