- Bowler , P.J. 1984 . E. W. MacBride's Lamarckian Eugenics and its Implications for the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge . Annals of Science , 41 : 245 – 260 .
- Bowler , P.J. 1984 . E. W. MacBride's Lamarckian Eugenics and its Implications for the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge . Annals of Science , 41 : 257 – 257 .
- Bowler , P.J. 1984 . E. W. MacBride's Lamarckian Eugenics and its Implications for the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge . Annals of Science , 41 : 245 – 245 . On p. 260 Bowler does allow that ‘for the most part, the sociological approach has already moved far beyond’ what he is criticizing.
- See, for example Barnes B. Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory London 1974 116 116 pp. 128–29, p. 129, or B. Barnes, Interests and the Growth of Knowledge (London, 1977), p. 58. The first of these passages, for instance, reads: ‘Ideas suit purposes not because of any logical relationship … Beliefs which “work” in one situation may be quite inappropriate in another. The connection between interests and ideas is contextually mediated’. I can see no essential difference, other than the greater generality of Barnes' formulation, between this and Bowler's argument as quoted in my second paragraph.
- MacKenzie , D. 1981 . Statistics in Britain, 1865–1930: the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge 251 – 251 . Edinburgh footnote 2. It was clearly a mistake to make this point in a footnote! But essentially the same argument can be found in the text of my previous article. ‘Eugenics in Britain’, Social Studies of Science, 6 (1976), 499–532 (p. 502), though the particular instance cited there is Alfred Russel Wallace, the anti-eugenic anti-Lamarckian, rather than MacBride the pro-eugenic Lamarckian.
- See Barnes B. On the Implications of a Body of Knowledge Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 1982 4 95 110
- MacBride , E.W. 1924 . An Introduction to the Study of Heredity 245 – 246 . London and 250
- Barnes . 1982 . On the Implications of a Body of Knowledge . Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization , 4 : 95 – 110 .
- These two aspects of the contingency of the link are made quite explicit in Statistics in Britain 1865–1930: the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge Edinburgh 1981 142 142 and p. 271, footnote 7.
- Again, that a local and contingent, not necessary, link was being discussed was made fully explicit. See Statistics in Britain 1865–1930: the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge Edinburgh 1981 142 142 It is perhaps worth noting that Bowler (footnote 1, pp. 255, 257, 258) misconstrues my argument about Bateson. My argument is not that Bateson opposed biometry because of his opposition to eugenics. To my mind, Bateson's opposition to eugenics formed only a part, and relatively minor part, of a more general political/intellectual stance.
Annals of Science
Volume 42, 1985 - Issue 4