Kitcher, Philip 1947- (Philip Stuart Kitcher)

PERSONAL:

Born February 20, 1947, in London, England; son of Ernest Lewis (a mail carrier) and Millicent (a dressmaker) Kitcher; married Patricia Williams (a professor of philosophy), August 21, 1971; children: Andrew, Charles. Education: Christ's College, Cambridge, B.A., 1969; Princeton University, Ph.D., 1974.

ADDRESSES:

Office—Columbia University, Department of Philosophy, 1150 Amsterdam Ave., MC 4971, 717 Philosophy Hall, New York, NY 10027; fax: 212-854-3196. E-mail—[email protected].

CAREER:

Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, NY, assistant professor of philosophy, 1973-74; University of Vermont, Burlington, assistant professor, 1974-78, associate professor of philosophy, 1979-83; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, professor of philosophy, 1983-86; University of California, San Diego, professor, 1986-99; Columbia University, New York, NY, professor of philosophy, 1998—, John Dewey Professor of Philosophy, 2003—. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, visiting assistant professor of philosophy, winter, 1979.

MEMBER:

International Union of Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, American Philosophical Association (former president), American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Philosophy of Science Association, Society for the Study of Evolution, History of Science Society (former member).

AWARDS, HONORS:

Henry Schuman Prize, History of Science Society, 1971, for article "Fluxions, Limits, and Infinite Littlenesse," a study of Newton's development of the calculus; ACLS study fellowship, 1981-82; senior fellow, Library of Congress, 1993-94; Distinguished Scholar in Humanities and Social Science, University of Vermont; American Academy of Arts and Sciences, elected 2002.

WRITINGS:

Abusing Science: The Case against Creationism, MIT Press (Cambridge, MA), 1982.

The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge, Oxford University Press (New York, NY), 1983.

Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature, MIT Press (Cambridge, MA), 1985.

(Editor, with William Aspray) History and Philosophy of Modern Mathematics, University of Minnesota Press (Minneapolis, MN), 1988.

(Editor, with Wesley C. Salmon) Scientific Explanation, University of Minnesota Press (Minneapolis, MN), 1989.

The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions, Oxford University Press (New York, NY), 1993.

The Lives to Come: The Genetic Revolution and Human Possibilities, Simon & Schuster (New York, NY), 1996.

Science, Truth, and Democracy, Oxford University Press (New York, NY), 2002.

In Mendel's Mirror: Philosophical Reflections on Biology, Oxford University Press (New York, NY), 2003.

(With Richard Schacht) Finding an Ending: Reflections on Wagner's Ring, Oxford University Press (New York, NY), 2004.

Living with Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith, Oxford University Press (New York, NY), 2007.

Joyce's Kaleidoscope: An Invitation to Finnegans Wake, Oxford University Press (New York, NY), 2007.

Contributor of articles to professional journals, including Philosophical Review, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, Journal of Philosophy, Philosophical Quarterly, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Philosophical Studies, Times Literary Supplement, London Review of Books, New Scientist, and Philosophy of Science.

Contributor to books, including Reason and Rationality in Science, edited by N. Rescher, University Press of America (Lanham, MD), 1985; Metaphors in the New Evolutionary Paradigm, edited by Sidney Fox and Mae-Wan Ho, John Wiley and Sons (New York, NY), 1987; The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge, edited by Eman McMullin, University of Notre Dame Press (Notre Dame, IN), 1992; and A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths about Science, edited by Noretta Koertge, Oxford University Press (New York, NY), 1998.

Editor-in-chief of the journal Philosophy of Science.

SIDELIGHTS:

Philip Kitcher, professor of philosophy at Columbia University, is "one of the most influential philosophers of science of the past two decades," wrote Phil Gasper in an interview with Kitcher on the Human Nature Review Web site. "His writings have been distinguished by the depth and clarity of analysis and the broad range of the questions on which he has written." A critic of evolutionary biology, "pop sociobiology," and creationism, Kitcher suggests that "we do need to reconceptualize the role of science and scientists in our society," looking more closely at the "functional role of science as an institution, and about the responsibilities that role brings for scientists and science policymakers," he said in the interview with Gasper. Kitcher's work and research focuses on issues in the philosophy of science, the philosophy of biology, the philosophy of mathematics, and the ethical and political constraints on scientific research, according to a biography on the Johns Hopkins University Web site.

In Abusing Science: The Case against Creationism, Kitcher addresses the growing debate as to whether "scientific creationism" should be taught in public schools along with evolutionary theory. As a philosopher of science, the author is alarmed to find science perverted to serve fundamentalist religion. "Scientific creationism," he maintains, takes advantage of intellectual tolerance while claiming that evolution is intolerable "because it is inimical to religion and morality" and to the literal reading of Genesis. Therefore Kitcher "aims to provide a ‘self-defense manual’ for scientists and educators to use in the battle to keep creationism out of public schools," assessed Paul Jacobs in the Los Angeles Times. Commenting in the Washington Post Book World, critic Edwin M. Yoder, Jr., supported the author's stance on creationism: "The validity of scientific proposition cannot be tested by majority opinion or vote…. To what degree, if any, should ‘democratic’ values override the judgment of qualified experts in the design of public school curricula?"

Jacobs also observed that Kitcher's "assault on creationism is … painstakingly thorough…. Not aiming for a popular treatment, [he] has succeeded in a thoughtful and scholarly dismantling of the creationist's ideas." New York Times critic James P. Sterba called the author's attack on "scientific creationism" "thoughtful and witty." "Dr. Kitcher has mixed a great deal of cold logic and history into his case, thereby creating a book that is as valuable as it is fun to read for scientists and nonscientists alike," the reviewer concluded. "[He] then goes on to show … that scientific reasoning does not have to be immoral, or even anti-Bible, to be fun."

The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge is "a fascinating, sometimes difficult, often contentious book meant to raise provocative questions about the nature of mathematical knowledge, its origins, development, and epistemological status," commented Joseph W. Dauben in Science. Emily Grosholz, writing in British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, commented that "the book is not only instructive, but a pleasure to read. Kitcher's prose style is clean, colorful, and lucid; his even-handed use of gender with respect to pronouns is also welcome." Throughout, "his arguments are models of clarity," Grosholz remarked. The book puts forth two theses, that "mathematics is an ‘idealizing’ theory having its original basis in human experience with ordinary material objects," and that "contemporary mathematics has evolved from this basis through a series of rational interpractice transitions," wrote Michael D. Resnik in Nous. Kitcher's "entire book is clearly written, widely accessible, and packed with interesting ideas and information," Resnik commented. "Whatever differences one may have with Kitcher over details of history or interpretation, his overall conception is impressive for its combination of mathematical understanding, philosophical insight, and historical sensitivity," Dauben concluded.

Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature contains Kitcher's in-depth critique of sociobiology and its practitioners, of which the most influential has been Edward O. Wilson. The book is "a brilliant, detailed, and powerful analysis of the work of Edward O. Wilson and of Wilson's sociobiological predecessors, colleagues, and followers," commented Leon J. Kamin in Psychology Today. Sociobiology posits that at some point in human evolution, particular advantageous forms of behavior ensured that individuals exhibiting those behaviors would enjoy the greatest level of reproductive success, Kamin explained. Darwinian forces of natural selection then made those behaviors prevalent in the human species, and they became hardwired into the human genotype. Finally, sociobiology argues that these adaptations would be difficult, if not impossible, to alter or excise from human genetics by changes in social environments. "Kitcher's carefully reasoned critique demonstrates that not a single one of these core claims of pop sociobiology stands up to critical scrutiny," Kamin remarked.

Kitcher "has written a book that is outstanding in its rigorous argument and searching analysis of the grander claims of human sociobiology," commented Roger Trigg in British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. "He brings to this task an impressive combination of philosophical, mathematical, and biological expertise. It is a book that anyone who wishes to use the insights of sociobiology in the study of humans should take seriously. Unfortunately," Trigg remarked, "despite its rigor, it never takes human sociobiology seriously." Although Kamin commented that Kitcher is a gentler critic of sociobiology than some, other reviewers thought Kitcher was particularly harsh. "To put it mildly, Kitcher has provided an extremely unsympathetic evaluation of the sociobiological research program," wrote David L. Hull in Isis. "His exposition is detailed, knowledgeable, and exhaustive, but anyone reading this book only is liable to come away with a one-sided view of the issues." Kitcher readily admits to being a critic of sociobiology, as in his Human Nature Review Web site interview with Gasper. But Kitcher's motives are not merely to bash sociobiology. "Vaulting Ambition ends with the hope that in showing these defects, Kitcher may foster the development of a scientifically responsible sociobiology," noted Alexander Rosenberg in Philosophy of Science.

In The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions, Kitcher explains that according to the concept of "legend," "science discloses ever more truths about the world, thanks to a method based on logical principles that determine the bearing of data on theory," observed Peter Lipton in British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. "Kitcher's book is a vigorous and well-argued attempt to restore some old-fashioned claims and values of scientific research," commented Ian Hacking in Journal of Philosophy. "His book must be seen as in part a political work that aims at legitimizing science against skeptics of various kinds." Scientists should be rightly optimistic; science does indeed ferret out the truth about nature; and science progresses rationally and cumulatively through rational and objective means, argues the author. "Taken as a whole, this book displays such breadth of scholarship and analysis that it barely seems credible that it was written by one person," enthused Lipton in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. "The quality of argument is high, and the writing is characteristically clear and engaging."

"To date there have been too few books providing nonspecialist readers with an overview of the genetic revolution," commented Graham Lyons and Joseph Wayne Smith in a Population and Development Review article about The Lives to Come: The Genetic Revolution and Human Possibilities. Lyons and Smith argue that the work "is in our opinion the clearest and best presented book in the field." Covering the basics of biology and heredity, Kitcher's work also covers "the moral dilemmas and social problems that emanate from such great discoveries and advances," noted Lyons and Smith.

Science, Truth, and Democracy presents Kitcher's claims for a concept of "well-ordered science." Since science is able to discover important and useful truths about the world, it must be assumed that "scientific truths are important if their fruits are beneficial," wrote David Goodstein in American Scientist. Kitcher "concludes that ideally the decisions that set the agenda of science would be made democratically, with the informed collaboration of every segment of society," Goodstein observed, adding that "the elaborate means by which that collaboration would be carried out he calls well-ordered science." Dale Jamieson, writing in Issues in Science and Technology, remarked that, "of all the philosophers currently writing about science, Kitcher has shown the most courage in developing a comprehensive picture that encompasses everything from views about the laws of nature to practical questions of science policy. For those who are willing to think hard and deep about the nature of science and its role in society, this is the book of the year."

Finding an Ending: Reflections on Wagner's Ring, which Kitcher wrote with Richard Schacht, examines Wagner's operatic "Ring" cycle from a philosophical point of view. The authors delve into the various philosophers who served as influences on Wagner's writings, keeping both the stories and the music itself in mind while focusing on the development of the characters over the course of the narrative in particular.

Kitcher's next book, Living with Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith, is a very different type of effort. The book looks at the concepts of evolution versus creationism and intelligent design, and argues against the inclusion of lessons regarding the latter belief system in schools. Unlike some arguments against the teaching of intelligent design, Kitcher's stance maintains not that intelligent design is a false type of scientific principle, but that the idea itself is completely dead and should not be considered a valid, modern principle under the biology curriculum. He then sets out to systematically explain just why intelligent design does not hold up as a scientific theory. James Krueger, writing for the Notre Dame Philosophical Review Web site, remarked: "Kitcher's book remains a useful short introduction to arguments concerning evolution and creationism, and may prove important in encouraging greater reflection on the philosophical and theological questions that can rebuild the kind of rational dialogue about religion that is ultimately necessary to move the debate in a positive new direction."

Kitcher once told CA: "I wrote Abusing Science because I felt that the public needed a clear, accessible, and accurate account of the issues involved in the creation/ evolution debate."

BIOGRAPHICAL AND CRITICAL SOURCES:

PERIODICALS

American Scientist, May, 1994, review of The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions, p. 295; March-April, 2002, David Goodstein, "Setting Scientific Agendas," review of Science, Truth, and Democracy, pp. 193-194.

Antioch Review, fall, 1983, review of Abusing Science: The Case against Creationism, p. 506.

Atlantic Monthly, October, 1982, review of Abusing Science, p. 105.

Best Sellers, October, 1982, review of Abusing Science, p. 283.

BioScience, October, 1996, Leonard A. Cole, review of The Lives to Come: The Genetic Revolution and Human Possibilities, pp. 708-709.

Booklist, April 15, 1983, review of The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge, p. 1064; January 1, 1996, Gilbert Taylor, review of The Lives to Come, p. 767; December 1, 2000, Donna Seaman, review of The Lives to Come, p. 685.

Book World, December 26, 1982, review of Abusing Science, p. 8.

British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, September, 1994, Peter Lipton, review of The Advancement of Science, pp. 929-932; March, 1985, Emily Grosholz, "A New View of Mathematical Knowledge," review of The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge, pp. 71-78; March, 1985, Harmke Kamminga, review of Abusing Science, pp. 85-89; September, 1987, Roger Trigg, review of Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature, pp. 389-392; September, 1994, Peter Lipton, review of The Advancement of Science, pp. 929-932.

Choice, November, 1982, review of Abusing Science, p. 455; October, 1983, review of The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge, p. 318; July, 1986, review of Vaulting Ambition, p. 1693; July, 1987, review of Abusing Science, p. 1521; November, 1993, J.A. Kegley, review of The Advancement of Science, p. 471; September, 1996, B.K. Hall, review of The Lives to Come, p. 153; November, 2003, B.K. Hall, review of In Mendel's Mirror: Philosophical Reflections on Biology.

Christian Science Monitor, September 10, 1982, review of Abusing Science, p. 81.

Chronicle of Higher Education, December 15, 1982, review of Abusing Science, p. 33.

Contemporary Psychology, October, 1986, review of Vaulting Ambition, p. 771.

Contemporary Sociology, September, 1987, review of Vaulting Ambition, p. 715.

Economist, March 2, 2002, "Holding to Account: Science and Politics," review of Science, Truth, and Democracy.

Educational Studies, winter, 1983, review of Abusing Science, p. 391.

English Journal, April, 1983, review of Abusing Science, p. 13.

Ethics, July, 1988, Alexander Rosenberg, "Grievous Faults in Valuting Ambition?," review of Vaulting Ambition, pp. 827-837; January, 2003, Daniel M. Hausman, review of Science, Truth, and Democracy, pp. 423-428.

Free Inquiry, fall, 1996, Timothy J. Madigan, review of The Lives to Come, pp. 62-63.

Futurist, May-June, 1996, Lane Jennings, review of The Lives to Come, p. 58.

Guardian Weekly, January 23, 1983, review of Abusing Science, p. 18.

Harvard Educational Review, May, 1983, review of Abusing Science, p. 211.

Hastings Center Report, July, 1996, review of The Lives to Come, p. 41.

Humanist, September, 1983, review of Abusing Science, p. 35.

Isis, December, 1984, Lorraine J. Daston, "Sweet Reason," review of The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge, pp. 717-721; June, 1986, David L. Hull, review of Vaulting Ambition, pp. 356-357; March, 1989, I. Grattan-Guinness, review of History and Philosophy of Modern Mathematics, pp. 154-155; December, 1991, Maurice A. Finocchiaro, review of Scientific Explanation, pp. 781-782; September, 1994, Hull, review of The Advancement of Science, pp. 554-555.

Issues in Science and Technology, fall, 1996, Ronald M. Green, review of The Lives to Come, pp. 85-87; fall, 2002, Dale Jamieson, "Science and Society," review of Science, Truth, and Democracy, pp. 90-92.

Journal of Philosophy, August, 1984, review of The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge, p. 449; July, 1989, review of Vaulting Ambition, p. 385; April, 1994, Ian Hacking, review of The Advancement of Science, pp. 212-215.

Kirkus Reviews, July 15, 1982, review of Abusing Science, p. 845; October 1, 1985, review of Vaulting Ambition, p. 1062; December 1, 1995, review of The Lives to Come, p. 1685.

Lancet, April 27, 1996, Robert Bazell, review of The Lives to Come, pp. 1171-1172.

Library Journal, September 1, 1982, review of Abusing Science, p. 1645; March 1, 1983, review of The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge, p. 507; March 1, 1986, review of Vaulting Ambition, p. 45; February 1, 1996, review of The Lives to Come, p. 92.

London Review of Books, November 14, 1996, review of The Lives to Come, p. 17.

Los Angeles Times, November 5, 1982, Paul Jacobs, review of Abusing Science, p. 28.

Los Angeles Times Book Review, September 29, 1985, review of Vaulting Ambition, p. 1.

Nation, October 28, 2002, Jonathan Kimmelman, "The Laboratories of Democracy," review of Science, Truth, and Democracy, p. 38.

National Forum, summer, 1983, review of Abusing Science, p. 44.

Nature, November 11, 1982, review of Abusing Science, p. 118; January 12, 1984, review of The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge, p. 189; November 14, 1985, review of Vaulting Ambition, p. 121; July 22, 1993, review of The Advancement of Science, p. 295; April 18, 1996, review of The Lives to Come, p. 591.

New Technical Books, July, 1993, review of The Advancement of Science, p. 664.

New Yorker, February 12, 1996, review of The Lives to Come, p. 79.

New York Review of Books, June 16, 1983, review of Abusing Science, p. 21; February 16, 1984, review of The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge, p. 36; September 25, 1986, review of Vaulting Ambition, p. 47.

New York Times, September 7, 1982, James P. Sterba, review of Abusing Science, p. C3; January 20, 2002, Galen Strawson, "Scientific Americans," review of Science, Truth, and Democracy.

New York Times Book Review, October 6, 1985, review of Vaulting Ambition, p. 48; August 30, 1987, review of Vaulting Ambition, p. 34; July 25, 1993, review of The Advancement of Science, p. 14; December 5, 1993, review of The Advancement of Science, p. 74.

Nous, December, 1985, Michael D. Resnik, review of The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge, pp. 617-622.

Phi Beta Kappan, May, 1983, review of Abusing Science, p. 664.

Philosophical Review, January, 1986, review of The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge, p. 129; January, 1995, John Dupre, review of The Advancement of Science, pp. 147-151.

Philosophy of Science, December, 1986, Alexander Rosenberg, review of Vaulting Ambition, pp. 607-608; June, 1991, James H. Fetzer, review of Scientific Explanation, pp. 288-306; December, 1994, Jarret Leplin, review of The Advancement of Science, pp. 666-671; December, 2002, Helen E. Longino, "Science and the Common Good: Thoughts on Philip Kitcher's Science, Truth, and Democracy," pp. 560-568.

Population and Development Review, March, 1997, Graham Lyons and Joseph Wayne Smith, review of The Lives to Come, pp. 181-184.

Psychology Today, October, 1985, Leon J. Kamin, review of Vaulting Ambition, pp. 76-77.

Publishers Weekly, July 16, 1982, review of Abusing Science, p. 70; November 27, 1995, review of The Lives to Come, p. 57.

Quarterly Review of Biology, March, 1997, Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., review of The Lives to Come, p. 113; March, 2003, Even Selinger, review of Science, Truth, and Democracy, pp. 77-79.

Review of Metaphysics, March, 1992, review of Scientific Explanation, p. 615.

Science, May 20, 1983, review of Abusing Science, p. 851; August 24, 1984, Joseph W. Dauben, review of The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge, pp. 825-827; November 15, 1996, Peter Conrad, review of The Lives to Come, pp. 1147-1148; January 25, 2002, Lewis Wolpert, review of Science, Truth, and Democracy, p. 633.

Science Books & Films, March, 1983, review of Abusing Science, p. 195; May, 1986, review of Vaulting Ambition, p. 298; May, 1996, review of The Lives to Come, p. 110; April, 1997, review of The Lives to Come, p. 66.

SciTech Book News, November, 1985, review of Vaulting Ambition, p. 2; May, 1990, review of Scientific Explanation, p. 36.

Times Literary Supplement, January 3, 1985, review of Vaulting Ambition, p. 10; August 9, 1996, John R.G. Turner, review of The Lives to Come, p. 3.

University Press Book News, June, 1990, review of Scientific Explanation, p. 36.

Wall Street Journal, July 11, 1984, review of The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge, p. 22; April 26, 1996, review of The Lives to Come, p. A10.

Zygon, September, 1996, review of The Advancement of Science, p. 523.

ONLINE

Center for Bioethics at Columbia University Web site,http://www.bioethicscolumbia.org/ (March 12, 2004), biography of Philip Kitcher.

Columbia University Web site,http://www.columbia.edu/ (March 12, 2004), autobiography and curriculum vitae of Philip Kitcher.

Human Nature Review Web site,http://human-nature.com/ (February 7, 2004), Phil Gasper, "An Interview with Philip Kitcher."

Johns Hopkins University Web site,http://www.jhu.edu/ (March 12, 2004), biography of Philip Kitcher.

London School of Economics and Political Science Web site,http://www.lse.ac.uk/ (March 12, 2004), biography of Philip Kitcher.

Notre Dame Philosophical Review Web site,http://ndpr.nd.edu/ (August 14, 2007), James Krueger, review of Living with Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith.