- “Tor Vergata” University of Rome
Dept. of Historical, Philosophical
and Social Sciences
via Columbia 1,
00133
Rome, Italy
- History of Science, Philosophy of Biology, History of Paleontology, Darwinism - International reception, American Neo-Lamarckians, Social Darwinism, and 26 moreHistory of Eugenics in North America, Literary Darwinism Or Evolutionary Literary Theory, Evolutionary Biology, Creationism, Lamarckism, Peter Bowler, Edward drinker cope, Darwin, Darwinism, History and Philosophy of Biology, Philosophy of Science, History of Biology, Evolutionary theory, Evo-Devo (Developmental Biology), Charles Darwin, Theoretical biology, Niche Construction Theory, Herbert Spencer, History of Medicine, Biosemiotics, Bio-Politics, History Of Eugenics, Animals and Animality, History of Science and Technology, Stephen Jay Gould, and Science and Religionedit
- Adjunct Professor of History of Science, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”. Ph.D in Historical, Philosophical and Soci... moreAdjunct Professor of History of Science, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”.
Ph.D in Historical, Philosophical and Social Sciences.
My research interests include the history of anti-Darwinian evolutionary theories, the history of paleontology, museology and science communication.
Research Fellow at PACHS (http://www.pachs.net/fellowships/fellows/david_ceccarelli/). Member of ESHS (European Society for the History of Science); Res Viva (Interuniversitary Center of Historical and Epistemological Researches in the Biological and Medical Sciences).edit - Barbara Continenzaedit
Paleontological iconography has come under considerable scrutiny in the recent years. In particular, historians have analyzed the impact of photography on paleontological illustration, with authors often coming to different conclusions.... more
Paleontological iconography has come under considerable scrutiny in the recent years. In particular, historians have analyzed the impact of photography on paleontological illustration, with authors often coming to different conclusions. The present article aims at showing that visual alteration has long represented a fundamental tool of scientific inquiry in paleontological photography. During the 1900s–1960s period, paleontologists, photographers and other practitioners developed several techniques to handle fossils and fossil pictures in order to bring out phenotypic characteristics useful for taxonomic determination. The article will examine two major case-studies: photographic retouching and the so-called “coating” techniques, with specific regard to the ammonium chloride and magnesium oxide methods for whitening fossils.
Research Interests:
Paleontological iconography has come under considerable scrutiny in the recent years. In particular, historians have analyzed the impact of photography on paleontological illustration, with authors often coming to different conclusions.... more
Paleontological iconography has come under considerable scrutiny in the recent years. In particular, historians have analyzed the impact of photography on paleontological illustration, with authors often coming to different conclusions. The present article aims at showing that visual alteration has long represented a fundamental tool of scientific inquiry in paleontological photography. During the 1900s-1960s period, paleontologists, photographers and other practitioners developed several techniques to handle fossils and fossil pictures in order to bring out phenotypic characteristics useful for taxonomic determination. The article will examine two major casestudies: photographic retouching and the so-called "coating" techniques, with specific regard to the ammonium chloride and magnesium oxide methods for whitening fossils.
Research Interests:
Il rapporto fra paleontologia e macroevoluzione ha rappresentato uno temi più discussi del dibattito evoluzionistico sin dagli anni subito successivi alla pubblicazione dell’Origin of the Species (1859). La storia della paleontologia... more
Il rapporto fra paleontologia e macroevoluzione ha rappresentato uno temi più discussi del dibattito evoluzionistico sin dagli anni subito successivi alla pubblicazione dell’Origin of the Species (1859). La storia della paleontologia evoluzionistica fra XIX e XX secolo è stata in larga parte costellata da atteggiamenti teorici anti-darwiniani volti a rivendicare l’indipendenza del livello macroevolutivo da quello microevolutivo e, al tempo stesso, a ridimensionare la selezione naturale a fattore meramente secondario nell’evoluzione dei viventi. In particolare, il diffondersi dei modelli ortogenetici a inizio Novecento definì un solco teorico ed epistemologico fra paleontologia e teoria darwiniana che per lungo tempo sembrò insanabile. Di fatto, fu proprio la teorizzazione ortogenetica di una necessità causale fra “evoluzione lineare” e “variazione lineare” a rallentare l’ingresso della paleontologia nell’alveo della Sintesi Moderna. Scopo dell’intervento sarà anzitutto quello di analizzare il retaggio anti-darwiniano della paleontologia evoluzionistica, esaminando in particolare i presupposti metodologici ed epistemologici che orientarono le ricerche condotte dalla scuola ortogenetica statunitense fra XIX e XX secolo. Allo stesso tempo, considereremo il modo in cui, a partire dagli anni ’60 e ’70 del Novecento, alcuni temi conduttori del pensiero ortogenetico siamo stati riconfigurati nel quadro di una teoria gerarchica dei sistemi evolutivi.
Research Interests:
Quando nel 1858 Charles Darwin inizia a riassumere Natural Selection , l’opera che avrebbe dovuto raccogliere la grande mole di riflessioni sino a quel momento elaborate dal naturalista inglese, egli opta per una strategia didascalica ben... more
Quando nel 1858 Charles Darwin inizia a riassumere Natural Selection , l’opera che avrebbe dovuto raccogliere la grande mole di riflessioni sino a quel momento elaborate dal naturalista inglese, egli opta per una strategia didascalica ben precisa, e cioe l’introduzione della complessa dialettica fra variazione e selezione nella sua dimensione piu quotidiana e accessibile: lo stato domestico e la selezione artificiale.
Research Interests:
Scholars have often considered evolutionary social theories a product of Positivist scientism and the naturalization of ethics. Yet the theistic foundations of many evolutionary theories proposed between the nineteenth and the twentieth... more
Scholars have often considered evolutionary social theories a product of Positivist scientism and the naturalization of ethics. Yet the theistic foundations of many evolutionary theories proposed between the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries bolstered the belief that following natural laws was morally desirable, if not vital, to guaranteeing social and moral progress. In the early twentieth century, American paleontologist and leading evolutionist Henry Fairfield Osborn represented one of the most authoritative advocates of this interpretation of natural normativity. Particularly during the last years of his career, Osborn used theological arguments to reinforce his advocacy of evolutionary ethics and social control policies, which led him to challenge his "old master" Thomas Huxley regarding the separation between evolution and moral conduct. This article examines the development of Osborn's evolutionary ethics, with particular regard to its bearing on the American debate on euthenics. I argue that theistic topics played a major rhetorical role in the attempt to justify normative conclusions drawn from ostensible laws of evolution.
Research Interests:
In the 1960s, historians introduced the expression "social Lamarckism" to better identify several forms of evolutionary social theories that had emerged between the XIX and the XX centuries. Notably, social Lamarckism became popular in... more
In the 1960s, historians introduced the expression "social Lamarckism" to better identify several forms of evolutionary social theories that had emerged between the XIX and the XX centuries. Notably, social Lamarckism became popular in the reformist atmosphere of the French Third Republic as well as in American social sciences. Within the same social and political contexts, however, advocates of social hierarchy also referred to the Lamarckian mechanisms of evolution. The paper aims to show that such different articulations of social Lamarckism depended on the way biologists and social scientists used the notion of "developmental constraint".
Research Interests:
Scholars have often considered evolutionary social theories a product of Positivist scientism and the naturalization of ethics. Yet the theistic foundations of many evolutionary theories proposed between the nineteenth and the twentieth... more
Scholars have often considered evolutionary social theories a product of Positivist scientism and the naturalization of ethics. Yet the theistic foundations of many evolutionary theories proposed between the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries bolstered the belief that following natural laws was morally desirable, if not vital, to guaranteeing social and moral progress. In the early twentieth century, American paleontologist and leading evolutionist Henry Fairfield Osborn represented one of the most authoritative advocates of this interpretation of natural normativity. Particularly during the last years of his career, Osborn used theological arguments to reinforce his advocacy of evolutionary ethics and social control policies, which led him to challenge his "old master" Thomas Huxley regarding the separation between evolution and moral conduct. This article examines the development of Osborn's evolutionary ethics, with particular regard to its bearing on the American debate on euthenics. I argue that theistic topics played a major rhetorical role in the attempt to justify normative conclusions drawn from ostensible laws of evolution.
Research Interests:
Historians have almost overwhelmingly considered Henry Fairfield Osborn (1857–1935) an authority of twentieth-century American science. Behind his political and institutional clout is the parabola of a scientist whose work embodied the... more
Historians have almost overwhelmingly considered Henry Fairfield Osborn (1857–1935) an authority of twentieth-century American science. Behind his political and institutional clout is the parabola of a scientist whose work embodied the complexity of the debate in evolutionary biology at the turn of the century. Considered to be the leading proposer of orthogenesis in American paleontology, throughout his career Osborn denied natural selection the power of producing novel evolutionary characteristics and rather explained evolution as the result of the use-inheritance theory, organic selection, and internally directed variations. Osborn’s theoretical shifts reflected all the disputes that characterized the so-called eclipse of Darwinism. At the same time, his late-career effort toward a synthesis among different evolutionary factors and approaches seems a noteworthy aspect of his work too often minimized. This chapter aims at exploring the research program in evolutionary biology that Osborn outlined between the 1910s and the 1920s. I will consider in particular how Osborn aimed at overcoming the specialization of biological studies through a renewed holistic approach in life sciences, outlining a synthesis (the theory of “tetraplasy”) among the evolutionary factors proposed in the years of the eclipse of Darwinism, and recasting the role of natural selection within a pluralistic view of life. Though Osborn’s agenda gained little acceptance among his contemporaries and even provoked harsh criticism by his Columbia colleague Thomas Hunt Morgan, his efforts seemed to respond to the epistemological necessity that would further motivate George Gaylord Simpson’s work.
Research Interests:
In the late nineteenth century, the term 'epigenesis' reappeared in scientific literature to designate the idea that ontogeny and phylogeny consisted in an inherently creative process where acquired changes could be transmitted to... more
In the late nineteenth century, the term 'epigenesis' reappeared in scientific literature to designate the idea that ontogeny and phylogeny consisted in an inherently creative process where acquired changes could be transmitted to offspring. In contrast, neo-Darwinism was labelled as 'preformation'. This paper explores the motives behind such a 'revenant dichotomy', showing that the much-discussed identification between epigenesis and Lamarckism is deeply rooted in the nineteenth-century evolutionary debate. I argue that, already at that time, such conceptual association was spurious, for neither neo-Lamarckians advocated epigenetic development in like manner, nor the advocates of epigenesis assumed Lamarckian ideas unanimously.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Evolutionary biology provides some hints to analyse the articulations and possible issues which arise from the integration between scientific practise and historical-philosophical reflection. Indeed, the study of organic change has been... more
Evolutionary biology provides some hints to analyse the articulations
and possible issues which arise from the integration between
scientific practise and historical-philosophical reflection. Indeed, the
study of organic change has been carried out by scientists poised to play on more than one table, becoming the major players in the dialogue
among science, epistemology and history of science. In particular, during the XX century a number of biologists made the historical-epistemological
reflection a work tool. This, however, poses a number of questions: which role do historical narratives play for the scientist? What drives
his choices of authors and issues to tackle? Can we consider scientists’ historical narratives as rhetorical devices to legitimise their own scientific agenda? By framing such issues in the field of evolutionary biology, the present article aims at reconsidering the use of historical narratives
in science. The paper will consist of three sections. In the first part, I will retrace the main steps of the debate on the role of history of science in scientific practise and education. In the second paragraph, I will examine how the classical historical narratives provided by twentieth century
biologists have come under considerable criticism over time. A third and last section will examine the interplay between the latest evolutionists’ narratives and the current approaches in the historiography of evolutionary biology.
and possible issues which arise from the integration between
scientific practise and historical-philosophical reflection. Indeed, the
study of organic change has been carried out by scientists poised to play on more than one table, becoming the major players in the dialogue
among science, epistemology and history of science. In particular, during the XX century a number of biologists made the historical-epistemological
reflection a work tool. This, however, poses a number of questions: which role do historical narratives play for the scientist? What drives
his choices of authors and issues to tackle? Can we consider scientists’ historical narratives as rhetorical devices to legitimise their own scientific agenda? By framing such issues in the field of evolutionary biology, the present article aims at reconsidering the use of historical narratives
in science. The paper will consist of three sections. In the first part, I will retrace the main steps of the debate on the role of history of science in scientific practise and education. In the second paragraph, I will examine how the classical historical narratives provided by twentieth century
biologists have come under considerable criticism over time. A third and last section will examine the interplay between the latest evolutionists’ narratives and the current approaches in the historiography of evolutionary biology.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In questo secondo seminario del ciclo dottorale 2019 "Ambienti e migrazioni umane", Giorgio Manzi in 'Storie di un bipede migrante' metterà in discussione la visione lineare e progressiva dell’evoluzione del genere Homo, assai diffusa... more
In questo secondo seminario del ciclo dottorale 2019 "Ambienti e migrazioni umane", Giorgio Manzi in 'Storie di un bipede migrante' metterà in discussione la visione lineare e progressiva dell’evoluzione del genere Homo, assai diffusa fino a un recente passato. Mostrerà quindi come negli ultimi anni, attraverso nuovi modi di guardare ai fossili, sia emerso un quadro in cui i nostri antenati e parenti estinti vanno a formare un cespuglio ricco di fronde che possono intrecciarsi in modo estremamente complesso.
David Ceccarelli in 'Pitecofobia e origini centro-asiatiche: storia di un equivoco' , attraverso una prospettiva storico-epistemologica, tratterà il modello “Out of Asia” sull’origine dell’Homo Sapiens d’inizio secolo, con il retroscena storico e teorico delle celebri e discusse spedizioni in Asia centrale condotte dal Museo di Storia Naturale di New York fra il 1922 e il 1930 sotto la guida del suo Presidente Henry Osborn, uno dei più autorevoli e ideologici sostenitori di tale equivoca teoria.
David Ceccarelli in 'Pitecofobia e origini centro-asiatiche: storia di un equivoco' , attraverso una prospettiva storico-epistemologica, tratterà il modello “Out of Asia” sull’origine dell’Homo Sapiens d’inizio secolo, con il retroscena storico e teorico delle celebri e discusse spedizioni in Asia centrale condotte dal Museo di Storia Naturale di New York fra il 1922 e il 1930 sotto la guida del suo Presidente Henry Osborn, uno dei più autorevoli e ideologici sostenitori di tale equivoca teoria.
Research Interests:
Between the 1870s and the 1920s, orthogenetic theories spread among paleontologists and zoologists, and led to the proposal of several macroevolutionary “laws” and to hypotheses about the future evolution of taxonomic groups. This paper... more
Between the 1870s and the 1920s, orthogenetic theories spread among
paleontologists and zoologists, and led to the proposal of several macroevolutionary
“laws” and to hypotheses about the future evolution of taxonomic
groups. This paper explores the historical and epistemological foundations of
such explanations. By focusing on the interpretations of homoplastic phenomena
within orthogenetic paleontology, we will argue that these models
were based on a “methodological uniformitarianism”, that is, a law-like view
of nature, and on the idea, professed by the well-known American paleontologist
Edward Drinker Cope, that «in biologic evolution, as in ordinary, identical
causes produce identical results». This principle became a shared tenet of early
orthogenetic views, ranging from the functionalist explanations of homoplasy
to the conceptualization of parallelism in terms of “latent homology”. This
will enable us to reconsider orthogenesists’ critiques of Darwin’s notion of
chance as the outcome of the nineteenth-century uniformitarian epistemology.
Further, it will allow us to highlight the epistemological discontinuities
that punctuated the history of macroevolutionary studies.
paleontologists and zoologists, and led to the proposal of several macroevolutionary
“laws” and to hypotheses about the future evolution of taxonomic
groups. This paper explores the historical and epistemological foundations of
such explanations. By focusing on the interpretations of homoplastic phenomena
within orthogenetic paleontology, we will argue that these models
were based on a “methodological uniformitarianism”, that is, a law-like view
of nature, and on the idea, professed by the well-known American paleontologist
Edward Drinker Cope, that «in biologic evolution, as in ordinary, identical
causes produce identical results». This principle became a shared tenet of early
orthogenetic views, ranging from the functionalist explanations of homoplasy
to the conceptualization of parallelism in terms of “latent homology”. This
will enable us to reconsider orthogenesists’ critiques of Darwin’s notion of
chance as the outcome of the nineteenth-century uniformitarian epistemology.
Further, it will allow us to highlight the epistemological discontinuities
that punctuated the history of macroevolutionary studies.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
In the years of the post-Darwinian debate, many American naturalists invoked the name of Lamarck to signal their belief in a purposive and anti-Darwinian view of evolution. Yet Weismann’s theory of germ-plasm continuity undermined the... more
In the years of the post-Darwinian debate, many American naturalists invoked the name of Lamarck to signal their belief in a purposive and anti-Darwinian view of evolution. Yet Weismann’s theory of germ-plasm continuity undermined the shared tenet of the neo-Lamarckian theories as well as the idea of the interchangeability between biological and social heredity. Edward Drinker Cope, the leader of the so-called “American School,” defended his neo-Lamarckian philosophy against every attempt to redefine the relationship between behavior, development, and heredity beyond the epigenetic model of inheritance. This paper explores Cope’s late-career defense of neo-Lamarckism. Particular attention is dedicated to the debate he had with James Mark Baldwin before the publication of Baldwin’s own “A New Factor in Evolution” (1896d). I argue that Cope’s criticism was partly due to the fact that Baldwin’s theory of social heredity threatened Cope’s biologistic stance, as well as his attempt to preserve design in nature. This theoretical attitude had a remarkable impact on Baldwin’s arguments for the theory of organic selection.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This essay aims to critically rethink the relation between the historiographical categorizations provided by the “conflict thesis” and the American controversies on evolution by analyzing the construction of biological and theological... more
This essay aims to critically rethink the relation between the historiographical categorizations provided by the “conflict thesis” and the American controversies on evolution by analyzing the construction of biological and theological discourses which featured the works of Edward Drinker Cope, leader of the so-called “American school Neo-Lamarckism”. As an authority in the American scientific community of the second half of the nineteenth century, Cope set forth a new conceptualization of design in nature based upon the active role displayed by organisms during their life. This assumption, in his own words, implied the reintroduction of theism in nature. Such case study, we argue, represents not only a great testimony of the permeable boundaries which characterized the interaction between scientific and extra-scientific discourses in the 19th century. It also seems to undermine the conflict argument as well as the idea that warfare was the norm in the American reception of Darwinism.
Research Interests:
The paper analyzes Gould's scientific and historiographical enterprise during the twenty-five years between Ontogeny and Philogeny and The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, with particular focus on the way Gould reshaped the major... more
The paper analyzes Gould's scientific and historiographical enterprise during the twenty-five years between Ontogeny and Philogeny and The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, with particular focus on the way Gould reshaped the major formalist issues involved in the anti-Darwinian orthogenetic theories of evolution.
Research Interests:
The following essay aims to analyze Herbert Spencer’s philosophy by looking through the several evolutionary outlooks which grew in the United States of America among the Nineteenth and the Twentieth century. Focusing on the most... more
The following essay aims to analyze Herbert Spencer’s philosophy by looking through the several evolutionary outlooks which grew in the United States of America among the Nineteenth and the Twentieth century. Focusing on the most distinctive features of the Synthetic Philosophy, it will be possible to highlight the “atypical” positivism of Spencer, whose epistemological and cosmological assumptions, despite their scientific foundation, seemed to give rise to some ambiguous metaphysical interpretations. This issue will be better explained looking at the success that Spencer’s philosophy obtained in the American culture along the years of the so called Gilded Age: an historical context in which Spencerism often turned into theism, orthogenesis and finalism.
Research Interests:
Since the publication of On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection (1859), the narratives of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution have significantly changed. Indeed, the very meaning of the concept of "Darwinian evolution"... more
Since the publication of On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection (1859), the narratives of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution have significantly changed. Indeed, the very meaning of the concept of "Darwinian evolution" has been disassembled and assembled in response to the debates in evolutionary biology, and thus seems to be the product of a long and complex interplay between historiographical and scientific needs. This clearly appears when considering the way evolutionary biologists, historians and philosophers of biology commented on Darwin's attitude toward theoretical issues that proved to be objects of great debate in twentieth-century evolutionary biology such as soft inheritance. The paper examines how scholars depicted Darwin's views on soft inheritance on the occasion of the three main anniversaries of his birth: 1909, 1959 and 2009. Indeed, not only did these represent a symbolic occasion for evolutionary biologists to take the stock of the situation within their research field, but also were an opportunity to assess Darwin's legacy. This analysis will show: a) that the border between "Darwinian" and "non-Darwinian" theories of evolution has been moved over time; b) that evolutionary biologists have often had concern for identifying what is in and out of the Darwinian research program, making up research traditions and confining inconvenient ideas.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Il rapporto fra paleontologia e macroevoluzione ha rappresentato uno temi più discussi del dibattito evoluzionistico sin dagli anni subito successivi alla pubblicazione dell’Origin of the Species (1859). La storia della paleontologia... more
Il rapporto fra paleontologia e macroevoluzione ha rappresentato uno temi più discussi del dibattito evoluzionistico sin dagli anni subito successivi alla pubblicazione dell’Origin of the Species (1859). La storia della paleontologia evoluzionistica fra XIX e XX secolo è stata in larga parte costellata da atteggiamenti teorici anti-darwiniani volti a rivendicare l’indipendenza del livello macroevolutivo da quello microevolutivo e, al tempo stesso, a ridimensionare la selezione naturale a fattore meramente secondario nell’evoluzione dei viventi. In particolare, il diffondersi dei modelli ortogenetici a inizio Novecento definì un solco teorico ed epistemologico fra paleontologia e teoria darwiniana che per lungo tempo sembrò insanabile. Di fatto, fu proprio la teorizzazione ortogenetica di una necessità causale fra “evoluzione lineare” e “variazione lineare” a rallentare l’ingresso della paleontologia nell’alveo della Sintesi Moderna.
Scopo dell’intervento sarà anzitutto quello di analizzare il retaggio anti-darwiniano della paleontologia evoluzionistica, esaminando in particolare i presupposti metodologici ed epistemologici che orientarono le ricerche condotte dalla scuola ortogenetica statunitense fra XIX e XX secolo. Allo stesso tempo, considereremo il modo in cui, a partire dagli anni ’60 e ’70 del Novecento, alcuni temi conduttori del pensiero ortogenetico siamo stati riconfigurati nel quadro di una teoria gerarchica dei sistemi evolutivi.
Scopo dell’intervento sarà anzitutto quello di analizzare il retaggio anti-darwiniano della paleontologia evoluzionistica, esaminando in particolare i presupposti metodologici ed epistemologici che orientarono le ricerche condotte dalla scuola ortogenetica statunitense fra XIX e XX secolo. Allo stesso tempo, considereremo il modo in cui, a partire dagli anni ’60 e ’70 del Novecento, alcuni temi conduttori del pensiero ortogenetico siamo stati riconfigurati nel quadro di una teoria gerarchica dei sistemi evolutivi.
Research Interests:
Several scholars have emphasized the intermingling of scientific and extra-scientific discourses that featured the American debate on evolution between the nineteenth and the twentieth century. Further, it has been suggested that American... more
Several scholars have emphasized the intermingling of scientific and extra-scientific discourses that featured the American debate on evolution between the nineteenth and the twentieth century. Further, it has been suggested that American naturalists often gave rise to a dialogue among scientific, metaphysical and social issues in their works. Yet the way such a dialogue occurred was as complex as the epistemological and theoretical framework of evolutionary biology in the years of the post-Darwinian debate. This proposal aims at analyzing the evolution of the anti-immigration issue in the American scientific discourse between the Post-Civil War Era and the first decades of the twentieth century. The topic will be framed by considering the transformation of the anti-immigration arguments along the works of two of the most prominent American evolutionists of their own generations: Edward Drinker Cope (1840–1897) and his pupil Henry Fairfield Osborn (1857–1935). Though being well-studied in literature, Cope's and Osborn's anti-immigration arguments will be critically rethought in consideration of the theoretical shifts between their interpretations of the causative factors of racial differences. In particular, the contribution will try to show that, though Osborn moved from Cope's pure morphological explanation of racial inferiority and reshaped his evolutionary view in the light of genetics, their anti-immigration arguments remained centered on the idea that the development of some human types occurs within internal constraints which undermine their adaptivity, intelligence and social value. By examining Cope's and Osborn's contributions in the American debate on immigration, and retracing their public activities as " conservative " scientists, this proposal will try to inquire the extent to which the defense of anti-immigration instances changed in structure as a consequence of the changing structure of the biological views. The denationality and deregionlism are the main problems in the ethnobotanical research in China. Most of the researchers were agree that the process, in which the knowledge developed from regional practices to scientific standardization step by step, is reasonable and helpful to increase the scientific level of the ethnobotany. However, is ethnobotany without nationality and the regional characters still can be regarded as ethnobotany?
Research Interests:
Several scholars in the last decades have highlighted how history and philosophy may be useful in scientific education. Furthermore, it seems increasingly clear that the lack of “scientific citizenship” (Jasanoff 2005) does not depend on... more
Several scholars in the last decades have highlighted how history and philosophy may be useful in scientific education. Furthermore, it seems increasingly clear that the lack of “scientific citizenship” (Jasanoff 2005) does not depend on a mere informative deficit. A science-informed decision-making needs not only an adequate level of scientific literacy, but also a deeper understanding of the nature of science (NOS) that could be provided by a historical- epistemological informed approach (Abd-El-Khalick, Lederman 2000). The lack of such awareness, we argue, leads to several misunderstandings about NOS aspects that are still widespread in the public sphere.
The present proposal aims at highlighting the backlashes of a historical and epistemological illiteracy in scientific dissemination by looking through a recent case study which has upset the Italian public opinion: the “Lombroso’s trial”. As several committees have tried to collect signatures in order to close down the Museum of Criminal Anthropology “Cesare Lombroso” (Turin) demanding the restitution of the human remains stored in the structure, a broad argument seems to have risen among most of the supporters of such a plea: that Lombroso’s work, beyond its racial biases, was “unscientific” in so far as it has been disproved by successive anthropological researches in the twentieth century. The museum would not have reason to exist because the theories that lie behind its materials have been disowned. Thus Lombroso’s criminological theories should be “officially removed” from scholastic texts not only for their supposed controversial effects on modern social values but, most importantly, because they were just untrue. Reacting to such views, many scholars and institutions have pointed out how nothing of celebrative or even apologetic could be retraced in the museum exhibits. Further, we suggest that behind the plea against the museum two main biases regarding the public understanding of NOS could be detected:
• That counterfeit theories do not deserve to be regarded as scientific, thus history of science is only the history of confirmed theories.
• That “true” science is an activity free from any extra-scientific discourse. According to this general outlook, Lombroso was firstly wrong because he was influenced by his pre- scientific ideas.
Both these conceptions seem to bring up again a “whiggish” view of history of science, which still represents a standard condition in the public understanding of NOS. The relevance of such biases will be examined by analyzing the political initiatives and publications of the committees in the light of the NOS values recognized in the STS and in epistemology: tentativeness, creativity, independence of thought, an empirical base, testability, subjectivity and cultural embeddedness (Duschl 1990; Matthews 1992; Abd-El-Khalick, Lederman 2000). Far from rehabilitating Lombroso’s theories, whose theoretical and methodological frailties need, evidently, to be contextualized in nineteenth-century historical framework (Gould 1981; Gibson 2002; Gatti, Verde 2012), this contribution will thus try to point out how most of this controversy could be reconsidered as the outcome of the underestimation of the above described assumptions.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman N.G. (2000). The Influence of History of Science Courses on Students: Views of Nature of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 37(10), 1057-1095.
Brush, S. G. (1989). History of Science and Science Education. Interchange. 20(2), 60-70.
Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gatti U., & Verde A. (2012). Cesare Lombroso. Methodological Ambiguities and Brilliant Intuitions. International
Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 35(1), 19-26.
Gibson, M. (2002). Born to crime. Cesare Lombroso and the origins of biological criminology. Westport: Praeger. Gould, S. J. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton and Company.
Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton-Oxford:
Princeton University Press.
Matthew, M. (1992). History, Philosophy and Science Teaching: The Present Rapprochement. Science & Education,
1, 11-47.
The present proposal aims at highlighting the backlashes of a historical and epistemological illiteracy in scientific dissemination by looking through a recent case study which has upset the Italian public opinion: the “Lombroso’s trial”. As several committees have tried to collect signatures in order to close down the Museum of Criminal Anthropology “Cesare Lombroso” (Turin) demanding the restitution of the human remains stored in the structure, a broad argument seems to have risen among most of the supporters of such a plea: that Lombroso’s work, beyond its racial biases, was “unscientific” in so far as it has been disproved by successive anthropological researches in the twentieth century. The museum would not have reason to exist because the theories that lie behind its materials have been disowned. Thus Lombroso’s criminological theories should be “officially removed” from scholastic texts not only for their supposed controversial effects on modern social values but, most importantly, because they were just untrue. Reacting to such views, many scholars and institutions have pointed out how nothing of celebrative or even apologetic could be retraced in the museum exhibits. Further, we suggest that behind the plea against the museum two main biases regarding the public understanding of NOS could be detected:
• That counterfeit theories do not deserve to be regarded as scientific, thus history of science is only the history of confirmed theories.
• That “true” science is an activity free from any extra-scientific discourse. According to this general outlook, Lombroso was firstly wrong because he was influenced by his pre- scientific ideas.
Both these conceptions seem to bring up again a “whiggish” view of history of science, which still represents a standard condition in the public understanding of NOS. The relevance of such biases will be examined by analyzing the political initiatives and publications of the committees in the light of the NOS values recognized in the STS and in epistemology: tentativeness, creativity, independence of thought, an empirical base, testability, subjectivity and cultural embeddedness (Duschl 1990; Matthews 1992; Abd-El-Khalick, Lederman 2000). Far from rehabilitating Lombroso’s theories, whose theoretical and methodological frailties need, evidently, to be contextualized in nineteenth-century historical framework (Gould 1981; Gibson 2002; Gatti, Verde 2012), this contribution will thus try to point out how most of this controversy could be reconsidered as the outcome of the underestimation of the above described assumptions.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman N.G. (2000). The Influence of History of Science Courses on Students: Views of Nature of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 37(10), 1057-1095.
Brush, S. G. (1989). History of Science and Science Education. Interchange. 20(2), 60-70.
Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gatti U., & Verde A. (2012). Cesare Lombroso. Methodological Ambiguities and Brilliant Intuitions. International
Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 35(1), 19-26.
Gibson, M. (2002). Born to crime. Cesare Lombroso and the origins of biological criminology. Westport: Praeger. Gould, S. J. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton and Company.
Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton-Oxford:
Princeton University Press.
Matthew, M. (1992). History, Philosophy and Science Teaching: The Present Rapprochement. Science & Education,
1, 11-47.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
As it has been widely argued by many scholars, both Cope and Osborn sustained the common rejection of Darwinism by assuming an orthogenetic notion in evolution. Yet the empirico-theoretical core of their objections, we argue, exhibited... more
As it has been widely argued by many scholars, both Cope and Osborn sustained the common rejection of Darwinism by assuming an orthogenetic notion in evolution. Yet the empirico-theoretical core of their objections, we argue, exhibited many of the biological and cultural controversies which featured the transition between the two centuries. Along with this, their direct intervention on some extra-scientific issues, such as the compatibility between theism and evolution or the racial problems, seemed to extend the problematic nature of their contributions. The analysis of such a multifarious production will allow me to deal with the complex process of disciplinary intertwining that characterized the biological discourse in America. I thus expect that this case-study could clarify the relations that stand between the changing structure of evolutionary theories and the extra-scientific discourses which orbited around such explanations.
Research Interests:
L'intervento tenta di analizzare le varie configurazioni storico-epistemologiche della tensione fra la nozione di habitat e quella di organismo concentrandosi, in particolare, sui contributi di Lamarck, Darwin e sul lavoro di Jacob von... more
L'intervento tenta di analizzare le varie configurazioni storico-epistemologiche della tensione fra la nozione di habitat e quella di organismo concentrandosi, in particolare, sui contributi di Lamarck, Darwin e sul lavoro di Jacob von Uexküll. Si mostrerà, in ultima analisi, quanto oggi le scienze del vivente si stiano sempre più dirigendo verso un riassestamento teorico in cui concettualizzazioni quali “interno” ed “esterno”, “abitante” e “habitat” sembrano sfumare in un quadro epistemologico più complesso e integrato recuperando una chiave di lettura sistemica smarritasi per molto tempo.
Research Interests:
The widespread scope which characterizes the American debate over the evolutionary theory is a well-known truth. There is a great literature on this topic, often focused on the several dealings between science and its milieu, in so far as... more
The widespread scope which characterizes the American debate over the evolutionary theory is a well-known truth. There is a great literature on this topic, often focused on the several dealings between science and its milieu, in so far as non-scientists, such as politicians, clerics and philosophers, embezzled from scientific paradigms specific notions in order to nurture their outlooks, sometimes through criticism, sometimes through conceptual exploitations. Nevertheless the relevance of such a debate finds at its roots the way itself with which American scientists built their scientific models. The aim of this contribution is to underscore how Neo-Lamarckism (especially in its renowned exponent Edward Drinker Cope) often represented a great compromise among the most important biological, theological and social outlooks of the late nineteenth century. Indeed, on one hand Neo-Lamarckians synthesized some biological received views, such as the recapitulation of adult shapes during the ontogenesis process, the inheritance of acquired characteristics and the main idea of progress. On the other hand, the same scientists seemed to integrate their naturalistic views with the mainstream social thinking of the Gilded Age, bearing the typical modernist theism, as much as racism, sexism and eugenics.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Che cosa significa abitare? Il presente volume di Sensibilia ambisce a costituire un primo importante passo verso la definizione di un concetto largo e non ingenuo di abitare.
Research Interests:
Historians have almost overwhelmingly considered Henry Fairfield Osborn (1857-1935) an authority of twentieth-century American science. As the foremost paleontologist at Columbia University and President of the American Museum of Natural... more
Historians have almost overwhelmingly considered Henry Fairfield Osborn (1857-1935) an authority of twentieth-century American science. As the foremost paleontologist at Columbia University and President of the American Museum of Natural History of New York, Osborn was, historian Brian Regal stated, “second only to Albert Einstein as the most popular and well-known scientist in America.” Behind his political and institutional clout is the parabola of a scientist whose work embodied the complexity of the debate in evolutionary biology at the turn of the century. Considered to be the leading proposer of orthogenesis in American vertebrate paleontology, throughout his career Osborn denied natural selection the power of producing fossils “trends”, and rather explained evolution as the result of
the use-inheritance theory, organic selection and internally-directed variations. In many ways, Osborn's theoretical shifts reflected all the disputes that characterized the so-called "Eclipse of Darwinism". At the same time, his late-career effort towards a synthesis among different evolutionary factors and approaches seems a noteworthy aspect of his work too often minimized. In this regard, this paper will
explore the research agenda in evolutionary biology that Osborn outlined between the 1910s and the 1920s. In particular, we will consider how Osborn aimed at (a) overcoming the specialization of biological studies at the turn of the century through a renewed holistic approach in life sciences; (b) outlining a synthesis (the theory of Tetraplasy) among all the evolutionary factors proposed in the years of the so-called eclipse of Darwinism; (c) recasting the role of natural selection within an
orthogenetic view of life. We expect this analysis could help us rethink the contribution of non- Darwinian traditions as well as question the narratives of the pre-Synthetic evolutionary studies advanced by the architects of Evolutionary Synthesis. Far from dismissing Osborn's ideological refusal of Darwin’s view of evolutionary contingency, we will try to highlight how many historiographical accounts have lost sight of the complexity of Osborn's research agenda, as well as of the fact that orthogenesists tried to provide solutions to the outstanding issues raised by the neo-Darwinian paradigm between the two centuries.
the use-inheritance theory, organic selection and internally-directed variations. In many ways, Osborn's theoretical shifts reflected all the disputes that characterized the so-called "Eclipse of Darwinism". At the same time, his late-career effort towards a synthesis among different evolutionary factors and approaches seems a noteworthy aspect of his work too often minimized. In this regard, this paper will
explore the research agenda in evolutionary biology that Osborn outlined between the 1910s and the 1920s. In particular, we will consider how Osborn aimed at (a) overcoming the specialization of biological studies at the turn of the century through a renewed holistic approach in life sciences; (b) outlining a synthesis (the theory of Tetraplasy) among all the evolutionary factors proposed in the years of the so-called eclipse of Darwinism; (c) recasting the role of natural selection within an
orthogenetic view of life. We expect this analysis could help us rethink the contribution of non- Darwinian traditions as well as question the narratives of the pre-Synthetic evolutionary studies advanced by the architects of Evolutionary Synthesis. Far from dismissing Osborn's ideological refusal of Darwin’s view of evolutionary contingency, we will try to highlight how many historiographical accounts have lost sight of the complexity of Osborn's research agenda, as well as of the fact that orthogenesists tried to provide solutions to the outstanding issues raised by the neo-Darwinian paradigm between the two centuries.
Research Interests:
Telegony, i.e. the idea that the characteristics of previous mates can influence the hereditary constitution of the female parent, represented a distinguishing issue in nineteenth-century biology. Since Lord Morton’s observations on the... more
Telegony, i.e. the idea that the characteristics of previous mates can influence the hereditary constitution of the female parent, represented a distinguishing issue in nineteenth-century biology. Since Lord Morton’s observations on the crossbreed between a mare and a quagga stallion, examples of “foetal infections” became part of veterinary studies, being afterwards reframed in the later debates on inheritance and evolution. Though the rise of Mendialian genetics challenged its theoretical basis, discussions of telegony had taken on a specific meaning for evolutionists between the 1880s and the 1890s.
The present proposal aims at analysing how neo-Lamarckian evolutionists addressed telegony as a key argument for epigenetic inheritance against August Weismann’s doctrine of the separation of germplasm from the somatoplasm. In particular, I will explore the role that the so-called American School of neo-Lamarckism played in reifying such a concept. Furthermore, I will discuss how the use of telegony to substantiate theories about inheritance gave United States a remarkable role in the international debate, especially as far as human telegony was concerned.
The present proposal aims at analysing how neo-Lamarckian evolutionists addressed telegony as a key argument for epigenetic inheritance against August Weismann’s doctrine of the separation of germplasm from the somatoplasm. In particular, I will explore the role that the so-called American School of neo-Lamarckism played in reifying such a concept. Furthermore, I will discuss how the use of telegony to substantiate theories about inheritance gave United States a remarkable role in the international debate, especially as far as human telegony was concerned.
Research Interests:
This is an International Congress in History and Philosophy of Biosciences. The aim is to discuss with a pool of important researchers the actual situation about two topics categories and methodologies: 'prediction' and 'contingency' in... more
This is an International Congress in History and Philosophy of Biosciences.
The aim is to discuss with a pool of important researchers the actual situation about two topics categories and methodologies: 'prediction' and 'contingency' in contemporary biology, ecology and epidemiology.
The aim is to discuss with a pool of important researchers the actual situation about two topics categories and methodologies: 'prediction' and 'contingency' in contemporary biology, ecology and epidemiology.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The volume gathers contributions by scientists as well as historians and philosophers of science about the subject of predictability in bioscience. A cornerstone of Western science, predictability has emancipated, along the XX Century,... more
The volume gathers contributions by scientists as well as historians and philosophers of science about the subject of predictability in bioscience. A cornerstone of Western science, predictability has emancipated, along the XX Century, from the deterministic framing. Biosciences played a crucial role in this process, but they also spurred the inquiry into the nature of the unpredictable, fostering the development of new epistemic approaches to complexity. The new computational tools and the exponential growth of information in the current Big Data era are reassessing the claims of predictability in the analysis of large complex systems, such as those underlying living beings, their behavior and evolution. The book offers a critical review aimed at outlining not only the new frontiers of predictability, but especially the new configurations that the unpredictable is assuming in these research fields.