This Is Biology: The Science of the Living World (Paperback)

~ (Author)
Key Phrases: hard group selection, inclusive fitness altruism, upward classification, Charles Darwin, New Guinea, Darwin's Origin of Species (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

At the age of 93, Ernst Mayr has forgotten more about biology than most people ever learn. Mayr has been more than just an eyewitness to the amazing advances in biological theory and understanding over the century; he was an active participant as well, helping to formulate the combination of Darwinian thought and modern genetics that is the bedrock of today's standard theory of evolution. But biology has always been something of a poor relation to the other physical sciences--subjects such as physics or chemistry that have strict rules of cause and effect and a certain predictability. Biology, on the other hand, is based on a muddle of combined causes, pure chance, and evidence drawn from unrelated areas, yet it is the one science that addresses those aspects of nature that can't be reduced to mere laws of chemistry or physics. In his book This Is Biology, Ernst Mayr sets out to show us how and why.

Though biology is a relatively young science, born in the 19th century, its roots go back to the days of Aristotle; Mayr traces its development from the ancient Greeks to the advent of modern molecular techniques. Woven throughout this history of the science is an explanation of its relation to other sciences and to the humanities, particularly history and ethics. This Is Biology was written with great thought and care and requires the same from its readers; for those interested in the science of life as well as one great man's life in science, this book is the natural selection. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Library Journal

The author, trained in evolution and ecology, provides an overview of the scientific study of the living world and how biologists do research in an ever-expanding sea of information. His book combines the history of biology with a philosophical perspective, looking at not just the "when" of biology but also the "why." (LJ 3/1/97)
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 352 pages
• Publisher: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (September 15, 1998)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0674884698
• ISBN-13: 978-0674884694
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6.1 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (8 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #638,552 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

11 of 12 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A difficult book, May 10, 2005

By	Jerry Engelbach (Brooklyn, NY) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

The title is misleading. If you expect Biology 101 you're going to be disappointed.

Mayr assumes a great deal about the educational level of his readers, so perhaps the book should should carry a subtitled warning to the unwary.

My sound bite description of the book is The Philosophy of Biology.

It's not about living things per se but about the study of them, with particular emphasis on the way in which the biology is closer to history than it is to areas of science that involve the exploration of universal properties. While the future behavior of subatomic particles and the formation of stars and galaxies may be, to a certain extent, predictable, biology is about what has been, not what will be.

Mayr accepts this, but brilliantly defends biology as a science (is history a science?). Whether you find him convincing depends on how much you respect the force of his conviction, if not the arguments themselves. Mayr's not an easy read and it's not always immediately apparent what points he is making.

Mayr was perhaps the world's greatest living biologist, or at least its most visible, to those who look for such things. Now that he has died, I feel driven to go back for a reread, after which perhaps I'll post another review.

12 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars A Defense of Biology as a Fundamental Science, October 1, 1997

By	Ryan Lanham (Chicago) - See all my reviews

This review is from: This Is Biology: The Science of the Living World (Hardcover)

Science necessitates focus. Surveys and summaries of a field by leading scientists are rare in part because so few have the tenure and perspective to take a global view. When such surveys are executed, they often suffer from the author thinking too much of the entry-level audience and not enough of the need for sweeping but accurate description of the trends and relationships that unite and shape the field. This book succeeds in formulating a portrait of biology, and an assessment of Biology's role in all science from perspectives rooted in philosophy, techniques, and most importantly its conclusions. There is a unique elegance in a great amalgamation of the sinews underlying the thousands of journal and research magazine pages of a massive and fundamental field. But such an summary is not easy reading, nor is it always filled with the drama some popular scientific books have attained. This book is not pop science. It is a science book for the educated person wanting to have a feel for where biology

36 of 50 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent Science, Bad Philosophy, January 16, 1998

By A Customer

This review is from: This Is Biology: The Science of the Living World (Hardcover)

This is an excellent and extremely accessible (but not in a dumbed down sense) introduction to biology. My only serious complaint is in Mayr's treatment of ethics, which is a good example of what bad can happen when a specialist doesn't stick to his specialty. His discussion of the possible biological origins of certain ethical behavior starts off fine, with an explication of how though individualistic selection can produce egoism, kinship selection and group selection can extend an organism's altruistic "interest" to other members of its kin or, larger, to its group. So far so good. But as Mayr notes what Darwin pointed out, altruistic behavior via kinship selection never extends to every member of a species. So by the end of the discussion of the biology of altruistic behavior, what we have are explanations for why someone might act altruistically towards their "in-group". Yet later, in discussing the proposition that moral inclinations are not innate, Mayr appears to endorse the proposition that reprehensible behavior towards minorities (including slavery) is, as Mayr put it, "amoral". But a group subordinating the interests of an outgroup for the benefit of the ingroup is precisely what one would expect from Mayr's biological account of altrusitic behavior directed solely towards one's ingroup! At the very least, Mayr gives a good account for why one would be biologically inclined to act altruistically towards one's ingroup, but provides zero biological reason for any transgroup universal altruism. From then on, Mayr only gets worse, delving into the murky fields of philosophy and moral theology. Aside from Mayr's wildly overstated implication that Darwin proved that God has nothing to do with the origin of morality (when did biology start coming up with transcendental proofs like that?), Mayr further sullies an otherwise excellent book by critiquing Judeo-Christian ethics' relevance in today's world. That has nothing to do with biology, and if someone wanted to read much better discussions on such a subject, there are much better treatments in the philosophy section of the bookstore. Furthermore, Mayr's broad brush overview of Judeo-Christian morality reeks of straw man superficiality. Perhaps Mayr didn't think it worth his time to study serious treatments on Judeo-Christian morality, but if he didn't, he shouldn't have broached the subject in a biology book. Finally, that Mayr can discuss the scientific bases of morality without mentioning the classic problem of the "naturalistic fallacy" (i.e. in this context, what IS the case biologically, does not entail what OUGHT to be the case morally), AKA the "fact-value gap", indicates how superficial (or unread) a discussion of ethics Mayr engages in. If creationists sound silly talking about biology, biologists should get a clue about how they must sound when they try to talk seriously about theology and moral philosophy.