Darwin's scientific gardener: John Scott, the 'physiological test' and the importance of character in Victorian science.

IF 0.7 1区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Ian Hesketh
{"title":"Darwin's scientific gardener: John Scott, the 'physiological test' and the importance of character in Victorian science.","authors":"Ian Hesketh","doi":"10.1017/S0007087425000226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This essay examines the working relationship between Charles Darwin and the Edinburgh gardener John Scott that developed in the wake of the publishing of the <i>Origin of Species</i> (1859). As the essay shows, Darwin sought to utilize Scott's horticultural knowledge and experimental expertise in order to provide some of the specialized botanical evidence that the <i>Origin</i> was not intended to provide. Scott, meanwhile, sought to use Darwin's patronage and tutelage in order to overcome his modest status as a gardener while making contributions to scientific knowledge. And for an intense two-year period (1862-4), Darwin and Scott's relationship was productive and mutually beneficial: not only did Scott's work supplement Darwin's ongoing botanical research on sexual development and fertility, but also his <i>Primula</i> experiments appeared to provide 'physiological' evidence of speciation via selective breeding. What the essay argues, however, is that there were limits to what Scott was able to achieve due in part to his social standing and perceived character that ultimately cast a shadow over his findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":46655,"journal":{"name":"British Journal for the History of Science","volume":" ","pages":"1-19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal for the History of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087425000226","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This essay examines the working relationship between Charles Darwin and the Edinburgh gardener John Scott that developed in the wake of the publishing of the Origin of Species (1859). As the essay shows, Darwin sought to utilize Scott's horticultural knowledge and experimental expertise in order to provide some of the specialized botanical evidence that the Origin was not intended to provide. Scott, meanwhile, sought to use Darwin's patronage and tutelage in order to overcome his modest status as a gardener while making contributions to scientific knowledge. And for an intense two-year period (1862-4), Darwin and Scott's relationship was productive and mutually beneficial: not only did Scott's work supplement Darwin's ongoing botanical research on sexual development and fertility, but also his Primula experiments appeared to provide 'physiological' evidence of speciation via selective breeding. What the essay argues, however, is that there were limits to what Scott was able to achieve due in part to his social standing and perceived character that ultimately cast a shadow over his findings.

达尔文的科学园丁:约翰·斯科特,“生理测试”和维多利亚时代科学中性格的重要性。
本文考察了查尔斯·达尔文和爱丁堡园丁约翰·斯科特之间的工作关系,这种关系是在《物种起源》(1859)出版后发展起来的。正如文章所示,达尔文试图利用斯科特的园艺知识和实验专业知识,以提供一些《起源》没有打算提供的专门的植物学证据。与此同时,斯科特试图利用达尔文的赞助和指导,以克服他作为园丁的卑微地位,同时为科学知识做出贡献。在一段紧张的两年时间里(1862-4),达尔文和斯科特的关系是富有成效和互利的:斯科特的工作不仅补充了达尔文正在进行的关于性发育和生育的植物学研究,而且他的报春花实验似乎提供了通过选择性繁殖形成物种的“生理”证据。然而,这篇文章认为,斯科特能够取得的成就是有限的,部分原因是他的社会地位和人们对他的看法,这最终给他的发现蒙上了阴影。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
59
期刊介绍: This leading international journal publishes scholarly papers and review articles on all aspects of the history of science. History of science is interpreted widely to include medicine, technology and social studies of science. BJHS papers make important and lively contributions to scholarship and the journal has been an essential library resource for more than thirty years. It is also used extensively by historians and scholars in related fields. A substantial book review section is a central feature. There are four issues a year, comprising an annual volume of over 600 pages. Published for the British Society for the History of Science
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信