Revitalising a nineteenth century debate about life (which has been done to death): or, how to live with historiographical pluralism

Book section : Chapter

This chapter shows how work in philosophy of science (PS) on pluralism and perspectivism can enhance history of science (HS). It provides a case-study from HS: a debate over the nature of life which took place at London’s Royal College of Surgeons in the early nineteenth century. According to John Abernethy, what distinguished living from non-living matter was that, in the tradition of eighteenth-century ‘Newtonian’ ether-theories, the living was pervaded and animated by a subtle, immaterial, vital spirit. The chapter argues that a good deal of Abernethy and William Lawrence’s disagreement over the nature of life can be made sense of in terms of disparities between each man’s notions of good physiological practice. If Abernethy’s political conservatism and patriotism are wedded to his vitalism, Lawrence’s perceived radicalism and Francophilia might push too far in interpreting his doctrines as reductionist and materialist.

Authors: Aylward, A

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: Routledge
• Host title: The Past, Present, and Future of Integrated History and Philosophy of Science
• Pages: 210-227
• Chapter number: 11
• Place of publication: London
• Publication date: 2019-05-31
• Edition: 1
• DOI: 10.4324/9781351214827
• EISBN: 9781351214827
• Language: English
• Keywords: SBTMR
• Subtype: Chapter