Abstract
During the second half of the 19th century, in the field of physiological optics, there was a strong controversy between Hermann von Helmholtz and Ewald Hering. This controversy has been usually characterized as “empiricism” vs. “nativism”. In the field of physiology of visual perception, several subjects demanded attention, among them, color vision. Helmholtz and Hering suggested different theories for the physiological correlate of color sensation and different color spaces to give an account of the relationships between colors. In this article, I will argue that the controversy between the two authors could be understood as differences between styles of reasoning, and these different styles express different presuppositions. More specifically, I want to suggest that the disagreements could be linked to the discussions on how vital phenomena should be studied.
Highlights
During the last decades of the 19th century there was a significant controversy in the field of physiological optics
Steven Turner, Helmholtz, Hering, and their schools disagreed on many issues, chief among them being the proper sense in which the eye may be said to possess and to require a mind with which to see. On this issue they disputed the basis of the human capacity to visually perceive space and to localize objects in that visual space. Is this capacity innate and present at birth, or is it gradually acquired through learning and individual experience and Hermann Von Helmholtz, Ewald Hering and Color Vision mediated by inferential processes? The question of the eye’s mind impinged upon the two schools’ disagreement about the probable receptor mechanisms that underlie color vision
Do these consist of three mechanisms producing respectively the sensations of three fundamental colors, which are psychologically mixed to produce the full range of color experience? Or do they consist of three sets of antagonistic receptors, producing respectively the sensations black-white, redgreen, and yellow-blue? Can the eye’s mind, in choosing among these alternatives, veridically assess the primitive or compound nature of its sensations? Do experience and inferential processes underlie the phenomena of contrast and adaptation, or are these produced by direct physiological mechanisms in the retina? [...] The schools’ antagonistic interpretations of all of these phenomena grew out of deep and divergent methodological commitments and out of disparate conceptions of the nature of life and of organic function. (Turner, 1994, 3-4)
Summary
During the last decades of the 19th century there was a significant controversy in the field of physiological optics. Hering and Helmholtz suggested rival physiological hypothesis for the account of color sensation.8 In my opinion, these disagreements are an expression of deep differences concerning the way life and phenomena of consciousness should be studied. These disagreements are an expression of deep differences concerning the way life and phenomena of consciousness should be studied These tensions were present in their discussions and in all fields of physiology during the 19th century in Germany, and I believe they determined different styles of scientific reasoning both in Hering and in Helmholtz’s investigations. 13 A shrewd historical study on the emergence of the experimental style can be found in Shapin and Schaffer’s work, Leviathan and the Air-Pump (1985)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
