Abstract
In the wake of recent attempts at alternate history (Bowler 2013), this paper suggests several avenues for a pluralistic approach to Charles Darwin and his role in the history of evolutionary theory. We examine in what sense Darwin could be described as a major driver of theoretical change in the history of biology. First, this paper examines how Darwin influenced the future of biological science: not merely by stating the fact of evolution or by bringing evidence for it; but by discovering natural selection, and giving it pre-eminence over any other mechanism for evolution; and also by proposing a masterful and quite unique synthesis of many scientific fields. Contrasting Darwin’s views with those of A.R. Wallace, I conclude that “natural selection” is clearly an original contribution, that it had no forerunners or co-discoverers, and could barely have appeared after Darwin conceived of it. This specificity of Darwin’s contribution is an invitation to be strongly presentist (Loison 2016) and to adopt only weak counter-factuals. In contrast, there are possible ways to use strong counter-factuals as attempts to “pluralize” the history of biological theory: i.e. imagine new possible avenues for the development of evolutionary biology. The idea that evolution was a theory “in the air” suggests that evolutionary theory could have developed in a world without Darwin, especially if we accept to delete not only “Darwin” but “England”. France and Germany are examined as possible countries where evolutionary ideas would have thrived even with no contribution from the English scientists. Finally, the paper suggests another counter-factual hypothesis: deleting not Darwin and his Origin but the Darwin Industry itself. This may allow us to read the Origin of Species with fresh eyes and to discover Darwin’s life-long interest in variation and its laws, as many of his early readers did.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beatty, J. (2006). Replaying life’s tape. Journal of Philosophy, 103–7, 336–362.
Bernard, C. (1865). Introduction à l’étude de la médecine expérimentale. Paris: Baillière.
Bock, W. J. (2009). The Darwin-Wallace myth of 1858. Proceedings of the Zoological Society, 62–1, 1–12.
Bowler, P. J. (1983). The eclipse of Darwinism. London-Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bowler, P. J. (1988). The non-Darwinian revolution: Reinterpreting a historical myth. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bowler, P. J. (2013). Darwin deleted Imagining a world without Darwin. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Chambers, R. (1844). Vestiges of the natural history of creation (10th ed., p. 1853). London: John Churchill.
Chang, H. (2004). Inventing temperature: Measurement and scientific progress. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chang, H. (2012). Is water H20? Evidence, realism and pluralism. Dordrecht: Springer.
Clark, J. T. (1959). The philosophy of science and the history of science. In M. Clagett (Ed.), Critical problems in the history of science (pp. 103–140). Madison (WI): The University of Wisconsin Press.
Conry, Y. (1974). L’introduction du darwinisme en France. Paris: Vrin.
Cope, E. D. (1887). The origin of the fittest. essays on evolution. New York: Appleton.
Corsi, P. (1978). The importance of French transformist ideas for the second volume of Lyell’s principles of geology. British Journal for the History of Science., 11(39), 221–244.
Corsi, P. (1988a). Science and religion Baden Powell and the Anglican debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corsi, P. (1988b). The age of Lamarck: evolutionary theories in France, 1790–1830. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Translated by Jonathan Mandelbaum).
Corsi, Pietro (2017). “Systèmes de la nature” and theories of life. Bridging the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries. Arcade. Literature, Humanities and the World. [online]
Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. London: Murray.
Darwin, C. (1868). The variation of animals and plants under domestication. London: John Murray.
Desmond, A. (1984). Robert E. Grant : The social predicament of a pre-Darwinian transmutationist. Journal of the History of Biology, 17–2, 189–223.
Dick, P. K. (1962). The man in the high castle. New York: Putnam.
Eiseley, Loren. (1959). Darwin’s century evolution and the men who discovered it. London: V. Gollancz.
Gayon, Jean. (2009). Darwin et Wallace: un débat constitutif pour la théorie de l’évolution par sélection naturelle. In L’évolution aujourdhui à la croisée de la biologie et des sciences humaines. Actes du colloque des 29, 30 et 31 janvier 2009 à l’Académie royale de Belgique. Bruxelles: Académie royale de Belgique, pp. 89–122.
Gayon, J. (1998). Darwinism’s struggle for survival heredity and the hypothesis of natural selection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Translation Matthew Cobb).
Gliboff, S. (2008). H.G. Bronn, Ernst Haeckel and the origins of German Darwinism: A study in translation and transformation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Glick, T. F. (1974). The comparative reception of Darwinism. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Gould, S. J. (1989). Wonderful life: the Burgess shale and the nature of history. New York: Norton.
Hodge, M. J. S. (1977). The structure and strategy of Darwin’s ‘long argument.’ British Journal for the History of Science, 10, 237–246.
Hodge, M. J. S. (2009). Capitalist contexts for Darwinian theory: Land, finance, industry and empire. Journal of the History of Biology, 42, 399–416.
Hoquet, T. (2010). Spectres de Telliamed: Maillet dans l’histoire de l’évolution. Corpus, Revue de Philosophie, 59, 153–186.
Hoquet, T. (2013). Translating natural selection: True concept, but false term? In H. Fangerau et al., Classification and evolution in biology, linguistics and the history of science (pp. 67–95). Stuttgart: Steiner.
Hoquet, T., & Levandowsky, M. (2015). Utility vs Beauty: Darwin, Wallace and the subsequent history of the debate on sexual selection. Current perspectives on sexual selection (pp. 19–44). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hull, D. L. (1973). Darwin and his critics: The reception of Darwin’s theory of evolution by the scientific community. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
Huxley, J. (1942). Evolution: The modern synthesis. London: Allen & Unwin.
Huxley, T. H. (1893). Darwiniana, in collected essays. London: Macmillan.
Johnson, C. N. (2007). The preface to Darwin’s origin of species: The curious history of the historical Sketch. Journal of the History of Biology, 40, 529–556.
Joravsky, D. (1959). Soviet marxism and biology before lysenko. Journal of the History of Ideas, 20–1, 85–104.
Kellert, S. H., Longino, H. E., & Kenneth Waters, C. (Eds.). (2006). Scientific pluralism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota press.
Lefèvre, W. (2009). Die Entstehung der biologischen Evolutionstheorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Lightman, B. (Ed.). (2016). Global spencerism: The communication and appropriation of a British evolutionist. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Loison, L. (2010a). La statue de Lamarck. Cahiers François Viète, 2(2), 15–30.
Loison, L. (2010b). Qu’est-ce que le néolamarckisme? Les biologistes français et la question de l’évolution des espèces, 1870–1940. Paris: Vuibert.
Loison, L. (2016). Forms of presentism in the history of science. rethinking the project of historical epistemology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 60, 29–37.
Mayr, E. (Ed.). (1966). On the origin of species: A fac-simile of the first edition [1859], with an introduction by Ernst Mayr. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Pancaldi, G. (1991). Darwin in Italy: science across cultural frontiers. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Provine, W. B. (1971). The origins of theoretical population genetics. Chicago-London: The University of Chicago press.
Radick, G. (2008). Why what if? Isis, 99, 547–551.
Radick, G. (2009). Is the theory of natural selection independent of its history? The cambridge companion to Darwin (2nd ed., pp. 147–172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Raf, D. B. (2007). A serpent without teeth. The conservative transformism of Jean-Baptiste d’Omalius d’Halloy (1783–1875). Centaurus, 49, 114–137.
Richards, R. J. (2002). The romantic conception of Life: Science and philosophy in the age of Goethe. Chicago-London: University of Chicago Press.
Roberts, K. (1968). Pavane. Doubleday: Garden City, N.Y.
Ruse, M. (1979). The Darwinian revolution. science red in tooth and claw. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ruse, M. (1996). Monad to man: The concept of progress in evolutionary biology. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
Ruse, M. (2005). Was there a Darwinian revolution? Annals of the History and Philosophy of Biology, 10, 173–187.
Ruse, M. (2009). The Darwinian revolution: Rethinking its meaning and significance. PNAS, 106(Supplement 1), 10040–10047.
Secord, J. A. (2000). Victorian sensation: The extraordinary publication, reception, and secret authorship of vestiges of the natural history of creation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Seidlitz, G. (1871). Die Darwins’che Theorie, elf Vorlesungen über die Entstehung der Thiere und Pflanzen durch Naturzüchtung. Dorpat: E. Mattiese.
Sheets-Johnstone, M. (1982). Why Lamarck did not discover the principle of natural selection. Journal of the History of Biology, 15–3, 443–465.
Spencer, H. (1891). Essays: Scientific, political, and speculative. London-Edinburgh: Williams & Norgate.
Todes, D. P. (1989). Darwin without Malthus: The struggle for existence in Russian evolutionary thought. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.
Toulmin, S., & Goodfield, J. (1965). The discovery of time. London: Hutchinson and Co.
Turner, D. D. (2011). Gould’s replay revisited. Biology and Philosophy, 26, 65–79.
Vuillemin, J. (1984). Nécessité ou contingence. L’aporie de Diodore et les systèmes philosophiques. Paris: Minuit et Fondation Singer-Polignac.
Young, R. (1985). Darwin’s metaphor: Nature’s place in Victorian culture. Cambridge: University Press.
Acknowledgements
I want to thank two anonymous reviewers and the editors of this special issue. This research was funded by the Institut de recherches philosophiques (IRePh) at Paris Nanterre University, France.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hoquet, T. Pluralizing Darwin: Making Counter-Factual History of Science Significant. J Gen Philos Sci 52, 115–134 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-020-09528-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-020-09528-0