Rhetoric in Modern Biological Thought: A Case Study of Classical Genetics
This paper mainly focuses on the book The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity (1915) by T. H. Morgan (1866-1945), Alfred H. Sturtevant (1891-1970), Herman J. Muller (1890-1967), and Calvin B. Bridges (1889-1938). Considered by some as a landmark in genetics, it convinced specialized and not specialized...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Editorial Bonaventuriana Universidad de San Buenaventura Cali
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | Revista Guillermo de Ockham |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://revistas.usb.edu.co/index.php/GuillermoOckham/article/view/7128 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1846114149263736832 |
|---|---|
| author | Lilian Al-Chueyr Pereira Martins |
| author_facet | Lilian Al-Chueyr Pereira Martins |
| author_sort | Lilian Al-Chueyr Pereira Martins |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
This paper mainly focuses on the book The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity (1915) by T. H. Morgan (1866-1945), Alfred H. Sturtevant (1891-1970), Herman J. Muller (1890-1967), and Calvin B. Bridges (1889-1938). Considered by some as a landmark in genetics, it convinced specialized and not specialized at the time that the theory was established despite its crucial problems. It aims to discuss the rhetorical devices the authors used to persuade these people. The methodology comprises the analysis of primary sources, in addition to the text by Morgan et al. (1915), and secondary sources dealing with the topic, including some works by the author of this article related to the subject and its representation in science. The study concluded that Morgan et al. (1915) used their discourse, some drawings, and diagrams, unaccompanied by photographs, mainly in aspects of the theory where evidence was scarce, giving a false impression that all was clear. It is possible to find historical simplification of the facts to reinforce the authors’ arguments, lack of discussion of alternative explanations, diagrams representing ideal objects they did not observe, and theoretical examples that conflicted with the numerical data in their previous papers. In addition, they did not present problems or difficulties related to their theory. All this contributed to some problematic features of the theory not being evident and being accepted.
|
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-46adbb8f5d154118a173cfdf70bb7da0 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2256-3202 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-12-01 |
| publisher | Editorial Bonaventuriana Universidad de San Buenaventura Cali |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Revista Guillermo de Ockham |
| spelling | doaj-art-46adbb8f5d154118a173cfdf70bb7da02024-12-20T15:31:15ZengEditorial Bonaventuriana Universidad de San Buenaventura CaliRevista Guillermo de Ockham2256-32022024-12-0123110.21500/22563202.7128Rhetoric in Modern Biological Thought: A Case Study of Classical GeneticsLilian Al-Chueyr Pereira Martins0University of São Paulo; Brazil This paper mainly focuses on the book The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity (1915) by T. H. Morgan (1866-1945), Alfred H. Sturtevant (1891-1970), Herman J. Muller (1890-1967), and Calvin B. Bridges (1889-1938). Considered by some as a landmark in genetics, it convinced specialized and not specialized at the time that the theory was established despite its crucial problems. It aims to discuss the rhetorical devices the authors used to persuade these people. The methodology comprises the analysis of primary sources, in addition to the text by Morgan et al. (1915), and secondary sources dealing with the topic, including some works by the author of this article related to the subject and its representation in science. The study concluded that Morgan et al. (1915) used their discourse, some drawings, and diagrams, unaccompanied by photographs, mainly in aspects of the theory where evidence was scarce, giving a false impression that all was clear. It is possible to find historical simplification of the facts to reinforce the authors’ arguments, lack of discussion of alternative explanations, diagrams representing ideal objects they did not observe, and theoretical examples that conflicted with the numerical data in their previous papers. In addition, they did not present problems or difficulties related to their theory. All this contributed to some problematic features of the theory not being evident and being accepted. https://revistas.usb.edu.co/index.php/GuillermoOckham/article/view/7128history of geneticsrhetoricmendelian chromosome theoryThe Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity |
| spellingShingle | Lilian Al-Chueyr Pereira Martins Rhetoric in Modern Biological Thought: A Case Study of Classical Genetics Revista Guillermo de Ockham history of genetics rhetoric mendelian chromosome theory The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity |
| title | Rhetoric in Modern Biological Thought: A Case Study of Classical Genetics |
| title_full | Rhetoric in Modern Biological Thought: A Case Study of Classical Genetics |
| title_fullStr | Rhetoric in Modern Biological Thought: A Case Study of Classical Genetics |
| title_full_unstemmed | Rhetoric in Modern Biological Thought: A Case Study of Classical Genetics |
| title_short | Rhetoric in Modern Biological Thought: A Case Study of Classical Genetics |
| title_sort | rhetoric in modern biological thought a case study of classical genetics |
| topic | history of genetics rhetoric mendelian chromosome theory The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity |
| url | https://revistas.usb.edu.co/index.php/GuillermoOckham/article/view/7128 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT lilianalchueyrpereiramartins rhetoricinmodernbiologicalthoughtacasestudyofclassicalgenetics |