Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T22:32:55.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Michael Ruse The Philosophy of Biology, (J .M. Dent Don Mills 1973)

Review products

Michael Ruse The Philosophy of Biology, (J .M. Dent Don Mills 1973)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Peter Achinstein
Peter Achinstein*
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Critical Notice
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , June 1975 , pp. 745 - 754
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Frankfurt, Harry and Poole, Brian “Functional Analyses in Biology,” British journal for the Philosophy of Science 17 (1966), 69–72.Google Scholar

2. Ruse has replied to Wright's, criticisms in Philosophy of Science 40 (1973), 277–280Google Scholar. Another discussion of functions that conflicts with Ruse's account is offered by Munson, Ronald “Biological Adaptation,” Philosophy of Science 38 (1971), 200–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Ruse replies to Munson in the December 1972 issue of Philosophy of Science, and in the same issue there is a rejoinder by Munson which discusses further counterexamples to Ruse's account

3. See his “Functions,” Philosophical Review LXXXII (1973), 139–168.

4. Ibid, p. 161.

5. I am indebted to the National Science Foundation for support of research.