| In this dissertation I look at the relationship between logic and taxonomy as taxonomists responded to double attack: an attack on their methodology from the biological community during the 1930s and at the start of a methodological civil war that erupted in late 1950s. According to the usual story, the relationship between logic and taxonomy could not have been worse. Taxonomists were thought to be either mired in Aristotelian essences or lost in some dubious set-theoretic wasteland. This story, however, is now recognized as being a political tool rather than an accurate history and the time is ripe for something new. I examine four cases: British botanist John Gilmour, American paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, German entomologist Willi Hennig, and American philosopher Morton Beckner that help illustrate the richness of this relationship. These cases will show how different branches of logic successfully played roles in taxonomy's methodological reform, rather than set-theory playing the dominant and ultimately failing role as the old paradigm. In addition, it will become clear that one reason why this could be done was because many of these taxonomists were part of transient interdisciplinary groups willing to relax the standards of authority within interdisciplinary communities. These changes in authority helped facilitate communication and promote knowledge production during this complex time. Taxonomists without the traditionally recognized expertise in logic chose to read logic on the fly, and likewise philosophers and other biologists without established training in taxonomy could enter the debate in significant and productive ways. |
