caa a22 4500 386398437 CHVBK 20180307112147.0 cr unu---uuuuu 161130e198909 xx s 000 0 eng 10.1017/S0007087400026170 doi S0007087400026170 pii (NATIONALLICENCE)cambridge-10.1017/S0007087400026170 Olby Robert Department of Philosophy, Division of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT. The Dimensions of Scientific Controversy: The Biometric—Mendelian Debate [Elektronische Daten] [Robert Olby] The increasing attention which has been given to social history of science and to the sociological analysis of scientific activity has resulted in a renewed interest in scientific controversies. Furthermore, the rejection of the presentist view of history, according to which those contestants who took what we can identify, with the benefit of modern knowledge, as the ‘right' stand in a controversy, were right and their opponents were ‘wrong', left the subject of scientific controversies with many questions. What determines their emergence, course and resolution? When Froggatt and Nevin wrote on the Bio-metric-Mendelian controversy in 1971 they called their article ‘descriptive rather than interpretative', so they avoided the very questions we would like to ask. Provine, in the same year, concentrated on the strong personalities of the contestants, their clashes, and the scientific arguments in play. But in 1975 Mackenzie and Barnes argued that the controversy could not be accounted for unless recourse was had to sociological factors. Their view has become widely known and figured prominently in 1982 in Steven Shapin's recital of the empirical achievements of the application of the sociological approach. I have returned to this subject because I do not yet feel altogether convinced by Mackenzie and Barnes' analysis. Even if their analysis of the controversy between Pearson and Bateson be accepted, it is not so obvious how effectively it can be used to explain the controversy between Weldon and Bateson, and I am not confident that it is adequate for an understanding of the evolution of their differing views of the mechanism of evolution. Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 1989 The British Journal for the History of Science Cambridge University Press 22/3(1989-09), 299-320 0007-0874 22:3<299 1989 22 BJH https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087400026170 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI 1 research-article jats NATIONALLICENCE 856 40 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087400026170 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI NATIONALLICENCE 100 1- Olby Robert Department of Philosophy, Division of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT NATIONALLICENCE 773 0- The British Journal for the History of Science Cambridge University Press 22/3(1989-09), 299-320 0007-0874 22:3<299 1989 22 BJH CC0 http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0 nationallicence BK010053 XK010053 XK010000 NATIONALLICENCE NATIONALLICENCE NL-cambridge