↓ Skip to main content

Rethinking Woodger’s Legacy in the Philosophy of Biology

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the History of Biology, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Rethinking Woodger’s Legacy in the Philosophy of Biology
Published in
Journal of the History of Biology, July 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10739-013-9364-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel J. Nicholson, Richard Gawne

Abstract

The writings of Joseph Henry Woodger (1894-1981) are often taken to exemplify everything that was wrongheaded, misguided, and just plain wrong with early twentieth-century philosophy of biology. Over the years, commentators have said of Woodger: (a) that he was a fervent logical empiricist who tried to impose the explanatory gold standards of physics onto biology, (b) that his philosophical work was completely disconnected from biological science, (c) that he possessed no scientific or philosophical credentials, and (d) that his work was disparaged - if not altogether ignored - by the biologists and philosophers of his era. In this paper, we provide the first systematic examination of Woodger's oeuvre, and use it to demonstrate that the four preceding claims are false. We argue that Woodger's ideas have exerted an important influence on biology and philosophy, and submit that the current consensus on his legacy stems from a highly selective reading of his works. By rehabilitating Woodger, we hope to show that there is no good reason to continue to disregard the numerous contributions to the philosophy of biology produced in the decades prior to the professionalization of the discipline.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Sweden 1 3%
Italy 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 36 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 20%
Researcher 8 20%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Professor 5 13%
Other 4 10%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 5 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Philosophy 14 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 7 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 June 2018.
All research outputs
#7,792,124
of 24,973,800 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the History of Biology
#162
of 513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,242
of 202,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the History of Biology
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,973,800 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
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 202,974 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.