Helminthology according to the philosophy of science of Imre Lakatos

https://doi.org/10.18294/sc.2017.1134

Published 11 April 2017 Open Access


Martín Orensanz Undergraduate Degree in Philosophy. Doctoral fellow, National Scientific and Technical Research Council, based in the Laboratory of Parasitic Zoonoses, Faculty of Exact and Natural Sciences, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Argentina. image/svg+xml , Guillermo Denegri PhD Degree in Natural Sciences. Principal researcher, National Scientific and Technical Research Council, based in the Laboratory of Parasitic Zoonoses, Faculty of Exact and Natural Sciences, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Argentina. image/svg+xml



Abstract views
1537
Metrics Loading ...

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Keywords:

Philosophy, Helminthology, History

Abstract


Lakatos’s philosophy of science has been used for different branches of biology, however this has not been true for helminthology. Therefore, this article examines the possibility of using his methodology of scientific research programmes (SRP) for reconstructing the history of the discipline of helminthology. It is upheld that the first SRP in biology was inaugurated by Aristotle, and its protective belt included a small group of auxiliary hypotheses referring to helminths. This programme continued up until the 17th century, when two rival programmes in helminthology arose: the internalist and the externalist. After the second half of the 19th century the internalist SRP was abandoned, while the externalist considerably broadened its protective belt during the 20th century. The internalist programme was abandoned due to the crucial experiments of Küchenmeister, which permitted the consolidation of the externalist SRP.

References


1. Lakatos I. La metodología de los programas de investigación científica. Madrid: Alianza Editorial; 1983.

2. Michod R. Positive heuristics in evolutionary biology. The British Journal of Philosophy of Science. 1981;32(1):1-36.

3. Craw RC, Weston P. Panbiogeography: A progressive research program? Systematic Biology. 1984;33(1):1-13.

4. Peters RH. Some general problems for ecology illustrated by food web theory. Ecology. 1988;69(6):1673-1676.

5. González Recio JL. Elementos dinámicos de la teoría celular. Revista de Filosofía. 1990;3(4):83-109.

6. Schomaker CH, Been TH. The Seinhorst Research Program. Fundamental and Applied Nematology. 1998;21(5):437-458.

7. Silva EP. A short history of evolutionary theory. História, Ciencias, Saúde - Manguinbos. 2001;III(3):671-687.

8. Alsina Calvés J. Modelos de cambio científico a partir de la selección natural: análisis y propuestas. ILUIL. 2006;29(64):221-257.

9. Pidone CL. La teoría del prión. Analecta Veterinaria. 2005;25(2):62-72.

10. Denegri G. Fundamentación epistemológica de la parasitología. Mar del Plata: EUDEM; 2008.

11. Scioscia N, Beldoménico P, Denegri G. Contrastación de un programa de investigación científica progresivo en parasitología: los endoparásitos del zorro gris pampeano Lycalopex gymnocercus. Filosofia e História da Biología. 2016;11(1):107-120.

12. Pievani T. An evolving research programme: The structure of evolutionary theory from a Lakatosian perspective. In: Fascolo A, (ed.). The theory of evolution and its impact. Berlin: Srpinger-Verlag; 2011. p. 211-228.

13. Nunes-Neto NF, Santos do Carmo R, El-Hani CN. The relationships between marine phytoplankton, dimethylsuphide and the global climate: The CLAW hypothesis as a Lakatosian progressive problemshift. In: Kersey WT, Munger SP, (eds.). Marine phytoplankton. New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2009.

14. Dressino V, Denegri G., Lamas SG. ¿Es posible una propuesta lakatosiana para el estudio del componente facial en mamíferos? Episteme. 1998;3(5):73-87.

15. Caponi S. Coordenadas epistemológicas de la medicina tropical. História, Ciencias, Saúde - Manguinhos. 2003;10(1):113-149.

16. Zobbe H. On the foundation of agricultural policy research in the United States. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section C - Food Economy. 2004;1(1):34-45.

17. Amici RR. The history of Italian parasitology. Veterinary Parasitology. 2001;98(1): 3-30.

18. Cordero Del Campillo M. The history of veterinary parasitology in Spain. Veterinary Parasitology. 1989;33(1):93-116.

19. Cox FE. History of human parasitology. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2002;15(4):595-612.

20. Enigk K, Habil HC. History of veterinary parasitology in Germany and Scandinavia. Veterinary Parasitology. 1989;33(1):65-91.

21. Grove DI. A history of human helminthology. Wallingford: CAB International; 1990.

22. Hoeppli R. The knowledge of parasites and parasitic infections from ancient times to the 17th century. Experimental Parasitology. 1956;5(4):398-419.

23. Touratier L. History of veterinary parasitology in France. Veterinary Parasitology. 1989;33(1):45-63.

24. Sosa R. ¿Por qué a los biólogos les sirve más Lakatos que Kuhn? Centro de Estudios Filosóficos de Salta: Temas de Filosofía. 2012;15:175-184.

25. Aristóteles. Investigación sobre los animales. Madrid: Editorial Gredos; 1992.

26. Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1970.

27. Farley J. The spontaneous generation controversy (1700-1860): The origin of parasitic worms. Journal of the History of Biology. 1972;5(1):95-125.

28. Ramsay W. Elminthologia, or some physical considerations of the matter, origination, and several species of wormes macerating and direfully cruciating every part of the bodies of mankind. London: John Streater; 1668.

29. Redi F. Experiments on the generation of insects (Translated from the Italian Edition of 1688 by M. Bigelow). Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company; 1909.

30. Tyson E. Lumbricus Latus, or a discourse read before the Royal Society of the Joynted Worm. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 1683;13:113-144.

31. Leeuwenhoek A. The select works of Anthony van Leeuwenhoek: containing his microscopical discoveries in many of the works of nature (vol 1). London: Black Horse Court, Fleet Street; 1800.