There is a large literature touching on Pearson in this area\u2014and the following is only a selection. Pearson\u2019s work has not only attracted attention from regular historians of science but from students of the sociology of scientific knowledge (see above) and the philosophy of science.<\/p>\n
Pearson\u2019s biology is put in various historical contexts by<\/p>\n
P. J. Bowler (1989) The Mendelian Revolution: The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society, London: Athlone Press.<\/p>\n
W. B. Provine (1971) The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics, Chicago: University Press.<\/p>\n
K.-M. Kim (1994) Explaining Scientific Consensus: the Case of Mendelian Genetics, New York: Guilford Press<\/p>\n
J. Gayon (1998) Darwinism\u2019s Struggle for Survival: Heredity and the Hypothesis of Natural Selection, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<\/p>\n
P. R. Sloan (2005\/8) Evolution in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.<\/p>\n
Bowler is very brief. The other works have much more to say.<\/p>\n
For a recent detailed account of Pearson\u2019s efforts see<\/p>\n
M. E. Magnello (1998c) Karl Pearson\u2019s Mathematisation of Inheritance: from Galton\u2019s Ancestral Heredity to Mendelian Genetics (1895-1909), Annals of Science, 55, 35-94.<\/p>\n
The controversy with the Mendelian, William Bateson, is examined more specifically in<\/p>\n
P. Froggatt & N. C. Nevin (1971) The \u201cLaw of Ancestral Heredity\u201d and the Mendelian-Ancestrian Controversy in England 1889-1906, Journal of Medical Genetics, 8, 1-36.<\/p>\n
D. A. MacKenzie & B. Barnes (1979) Scientific Judgement: the Biometry-Mendelism Controversy, pp. 191-210 of Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture, edited by B. Barnes and S. Shapin, Beverly-Hills: Sage.<\/p>\n
N. Roll-Hansen (1983): The Death of Spontaneous Generation and the Birth of the Gene: Two Case Studies of Relativism. Social Studies of Science, 13, 481-519.<\/p>\n
R. Olby (1988) The Dimensions of Scientific Controversy: The Biometric-Mendelian Debate, British Journal of the History of Science, 22, 299-320.<\/p>\n
A. Nordmann (1992) Darwinians at War: Bateson’s Place in Histories of Darwinism, Synthese, 91, 53-72.<\/p>\n
A. R. Rushton (2000) Nettleship, Pearson and Bateson: The Biometric-Mendelian Debate in a Medical Context, Journal of the History of Medicine, 55, 134-157.<\/p>\n
M. E. Magnello (2004) \u201cThe Reception of Mendelism by the Biometricians and the Early Mendelians\u00a0 (1899-1909, in M. Keynes, A. W. F. Edwards, R. Peel (eds.) (2004) A Century of Mendelism in Human Genetics, London: Taylor & Francis.<\/p>\n
Olby also reviews the secondary literature. For Bateson see Donald Forsdyke\u2019s website. A major biography of Bateson has recently appeared<\/p>\n
Alan G. Cock & Donald R. Forsdyke \u201cTreasure Your Exceptions\u201d: The Science and Life of William Bateson, Springer (June 2008) Amazon<\/p>\n
An important point of contention between Pearson and Fisher (see also the references under Statistics above) is treated by<\/p>\n
B. Norton and E. S. Pearson (1976) A Note on the Background to and Refereeing of R. A. Fisher\u2019s 1918 Paper \u2018The Correlation between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian inheritance\u2019, Notes & Records of the Royal Society of London, 31, 151-62. JSTOR<\/p>\n
Fisher 1918 reconciled Mendelism and Biometry. Morrison tries to identify the assumptions behind Fisher\u2019s reconciliation and Pearson\u2019s rejection of reconciliation.<\/p>\n
M. Morrison (2002) Modelling Populations: Pearson and Fisher on Mendelism and Biometry, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 53, 39-698.<\/p>\n
Pearson\u2019s criticism of some Mendelian work on the inheritance of mental defect is treated by<\/p>\n
H. G. Spencer and D. B. Paul (1998) The Failure of a Scientific Critic: David Heron, Karl Pearson and Mendelian Eugenics, British Journal of the History of Science, 31, 441-452.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
There is a large literature touching on Pearson in this area\u2014and the following is only a selection. Pearson\u2019s work has not only attracted attention from regular historians of science but from students of the sociology of scientific knowledge (see above) and the philosophy of science. Pearson\u2019s biology is put in various historical contexts by P. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":77439,"featured_media":0,"parent":29,"menu_order":30,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-35","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/karlpearson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/35","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/karlpearson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/karlpearson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/karlpearson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/77439"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/karlpearson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=35"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/karlpearson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/35\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":36,"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/karlpearson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/35\/revisions\/36"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/karlpearson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/29"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.soton.ac.uk\/karlpearson\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}