Factors shaping Ernst Mayr's concepts in the history of biology
Factors shaping Ernst Mayr's concepts in the history of biology
复制标题
生物学史上影响恩斯特·迈尔概念的因素
DOI：
10.1007/bf00129696
复制
发表时间：
1996
影响因子：
0.8
通讯作者：
T. Junker
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Junker
结论正如本次讨论中经常指出的那样，迈尔研究生物学史方法的最典型特征之一源于这样一个事实：他在很大程度上处理的是他自己的专业史。此外，他选择历史事件的主要标准是它们与现代生物学理论的相关性。正如W. F.拜纳姆和其他人所指出的，他的评论者的总体印象是“进化生物学的一位杰出人物现在已经写下了他的学科的伟大历史。”138拜纳姆在这里指的是《生物学思想的成长》，但这一观察同样适用于迈尔的其他历史著作：人们必须阅读这本书[一个长论证]，不仅因为它的内容本身，而且因为它讲述了作者的内容。当然，当一个人这样做时，他会全副武装地离开。许多（如果不是全部的话）驱使迈尔度过其漫长学术生涯的争论和争论再次出现，并一如既往地有力而优雅地陈述。139到目前为止，大多数评论家都同意；相反，争论的焦点是如何根据这一观察来评价迈尔的历史著作。他的作品的两个相关特征——我将称之为主观性和当下主义——与科学史上广泛采用的方法相对立，库恩的建议就是例证，即“只要有可能……历史学家就应该抛开他所知道的科学。他的科学应该从他所研究时期的教科书和期刊中学习。”140然而，也有一些历史学家认为迈尔与其历史研究的主题之间的密切联系是一个优势。141另一方面，人们认为过去和现在之间的联系必然会导致历史真相的扭曲，并导致史学谬误，通常被称为“辉格党历史”。赫伯特·巴特菲尔德 (Herbert Butterfield) 在 1931 年赋予了该术语现在普遍接受的含义，他认为“真正的历史理解不是通过将过去从属于现在来实现的，而是通过我们将过去变成现在，并试图用另一个世纪而不是我们自己的眼睛来看待生活来实现”142。不幸的是，巴特菲尔德对他所认为的辉格党历史的定义仍然有些模糊，而现代作家则强调了他们认为最重要的内容。巴特菲尔德的“过去对现在的从属”是指对主题的选择（查尔斯·达尔文的传记比路易斯·阿加西的传记还要多）143对历史作者的评价，144或者更一般地说，是指“用一只眼睛，可以说，现在”的各种历史。145辉格党历史学家的潜在倾向是产生一种“从那些人的角度讲述的历史叙述”。 146 导致“对当下的赞美”。 147 显然，如果我们应用“选择”或“参考”的标准，迈尔对生物学史的强烈当下主义态度可以被称为辉格党派。然而，也许值得一提的是，对科学史进行严格的历史主义描述的计划受到了不同作者的挑战。148对于迈尔来说，将现在的情况与过去进行比较不仅是合法的，而且是必要的。 “辉格党”只是我们这个时代对一位作者的评价。149我不能在这里详细讨论惠特派/反辉格党争议，除了说迈尔已经相当广泛地为自己辩护，反对辉格党的指控。150尽管如此，触及一些在他的作品评论中占主导地位的批评可能是有用的。首先，我们遇到这样的观念：历史学家可以写……
ConclusionAs frequently pointed out in this discussion, one of the most characteristic features of Mayr's approach to the history of biology stems from the fact that he is dealing to a considerable degree with his own professional history. Furthermore, his main criterion for the selection of historical episodes is their relevance for modern biological theory. As W. F. Bynum and others have noted, the general impression of his reviewers is that “one of the towering figures of evolutionary biology has now written a towering history of his discipline.”138Bynum is here referring toThe Growth of Biological Thought, but this observation holds equally true for Mayr's other historical writings: One must surely read this book [One Long Argument] not only for its content in itself, but for what it tells of its author. And certainly as one does so, one comes away full-handed. Many, if not all, of the disputes and controversies that have driven Mayr through his long intellectual life reappear, stated as forcefully and elegantly as ever.139Up to this point, most reviewers agree; the bone of contention is, rather, how to evaluate Mayr's historical work, considering this observation. The two related characteristics of his work-I will call them subjectivity and presentism-stand in opposition to a widespread approach in the history of science exemplified by Kuhn's suggestion that “insofar as possible..., the historian should set aside the science that he knows. His science should be learned from the textbooks and journals of the period he studies.”140There are, however, historians who consider the close connection between Mayr and the subject matter of his historical studies to be an advantage.141On the other hand, it is assumed that the connection between past and present must result in a distortion of the historical truth and lead to a historiographical fallacy, commonly referred to as “Whig history”. Herbert Butterfield, who in 1931 gave the term its now generally accepted meaning, believed that “real historical understanding is not achieved by the subordination of the past to the present, but rather by our making the past our present and attempting to see life with the eyes of another century than our own”142. Unfortunately, Butterfield's definition of what he considers Whig history remains somewhat vague, and modern authors have emphasized what they consider most important. Butterfield's “subordination of the past to the present” is referred to in respect to the selection of subjects (there are more biographies of Charles Darwin than of, let's say, Louis Agassiz),143to the evaluation of historical authors,144or, more generally, to all kinds of histories “with one eye, so to speak, upon the present.”145The underlying tendency of Whig historians is to produce a “historical account told from the viewpoint of those in power,”146leading to a “glorification of the present.”147It is obvious that Mayr's strongly presentist approach to the history of biology can be called Whiggish, if we apply the criteria of “selection” or “reference.” However, it might be worth mentioning that the program of writing a strictly historicist account of the history of science is challenged by various authors.148For Mayr, it is not only legitimate but necessary to compare the present situation with the past. “Whiggish” is only the evaluation of an author in terms of our time.149I cannot discuss the Whit/anti-Whig controversy in any detail here, apart from saying that Mayr has defended himself rather extensively against the charges of being Whiggish.150Nevertheless, it may be useful to touch on some of the criticisms that are predominant in reviews of his writings. First, we encounter the notion that historians can write …