Reasoning in Biological Discoveries Essays on Mechanisms, Interfield Relations, and Anomaly Resolution
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Long Contents
- List of Figures
- List of Tables
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- PART I BIOLOGICAL MECHANISMS
- 1 Thinking About Mechanisms with Peter Machamer and Carl F. Craver
- 2 Discovering Mechanisms in Neurobiology: The Case of Spatial Memory with Carl F. Craver
- 3 Strategies in the Interfield Discovery of the Mechanism of Protein Synthesis with Carl F. Craver
- 4 Relations Among Fields: Mendelian, Cytological, and Molecular Mechanisms
- PART II REASONING STRATEGIES: RELATING FIELDS, RESOLVING ANOMALIES
- PART III DISCOVERING MECHANISMS: CONSTRUCTION, EVALUATION, REVISION
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
4 - Relations Among Fields: Mendelian, Cytological, and Molecular Mechanisms
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 August 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Long Contents
- List of Figures
- List of Tables
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- PART I BIOLOGICAL MECHANISMS
- 1 Thinking About Mechanisms with Peter Machamer and Carl F. Craver
- 2 Discovering Mechanisms in Neurobiology: The Case of Spatial Memory with Carl F. Craver
- 3 Strategies in the Interfield Discovery of the Mechanism of Protein Synthesis with Carl F. Craver
- 4 Relations Among Fields: Mendelian, Cytological, and Molecular Mechanisms
- PART II REASONING STRATEGIES: RELATING FIELDS, RESOLVING ANOMALIES
- PART III DISCOVERING MECHANISMS: CONSTRUCTION, EVALUATION, REVISION
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
INTRODUCTION
Philosophers of biology have debated the nature of the relations between Mendelian genetics and molecular biology for some fifty years. They have proposed a variety of relations between the fields, including reduction, replacement, and explanatory extension. This chapter proposes a new analysis: the two fields discovered separate but serially connected mechanisms. These hereditary mechanisms have different working entities and the mechanisms operate at different times in an integrated temporal series of hereditary mechanisms. This analysis better characterizes the practice of biologists than previous accounts, as evidenced both by the historical development of the two fields and by presentations of the results of the two fields in contemporary textbooks.
Accounts of formal reduction played many roles in philosophical analyses of science in the second half of the twentieth century. Reduction was seen both as the relation among theories at different levels of organization at a given time (sometimes called “microreduction”) and as the relation between predecessor and successor theories. Furthermore, reduction was tied closely to explanation. The connection between what was to be explained (the explanandum) and what did the explaining (the explanans, usually general laws) was claimed to be (usually) deduction (Hempel 1965). Hence, the deduction of the reduced theory (or the observations that it explained) from the reducing theory in formal reduction permitted the claim that the reducing theory explained the reduced theory (or its observation statements). The status of the reduced theory after a reduction was different in different accounts of formal reduction.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Reasoning in Biological DiscoveriesEssays on Mechanisms, Interfield Relations, and Anomaly Resolution, pp. 98 - 124Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2006
References
, , and (1906), “Experimental Studies in the Physiology of Heredity,” Reports to the Evolution Committee of the Royal Society III. Reprinted in R. C. Punnett (1928), Scientific Papers of William Bateson, v.2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 152–161.Google Scholar
and (1993), Discovering Complexity: Decomposition and Localization as Strategies in Scientific Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
(1904), Ergebnisse über die Konstitution der chromatischen Substanz des Zellkerns. Jena: G. Fischer.Google Scholar
(2002), Designs for Life: Molecular Biology after World War II. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Correns, Carl ([1900] 1966), “G. Mendel's Law Concerning the Behavior of Progeny of Varietal Hybrids,” translated from German and reprinted in and (eds.), The Origin of Genetics, A Mendel Source Book. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman, pp. 119–132.Google Scholar
(2001), “Role Functions, Mechanisms, and Hierarchy,” Philosophy of Science 68: 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craver, Carl F. (2002a), “Structures of Scientific Theories,” in and (eds.), Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 55–79.Google Scholar
, , , and (1961), “General Nature of the Genetic Code for Proteins,” Nature 192: 1227–1232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1991), Theory Change in Science: Strategies from Mendelian Genetics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Darden, Lindley (1995), “Exemplars, Abstractions, and Anomalies: Representations and Theory Change in Mendelian and Molecular Genetics,” in and (eds.), Concepts, Theories, and Rationality in the Biological Sciences. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 137–158.Google Scholar
(1996), “Generalizations in Biology,” Essay Review of K. Schaffner's Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 27: 409–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002), “Strategies for Discovering Mechanisms: Schema Instantiation, Modular Subassembly, Forward/Backward Chaining,” Philosophy of Science (Supplement) 69: S354–S365.Google Scholar
and (2002), “Strategies in the Interfield Discovery of the Mechanism of Protein Synthesis,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 33: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogle, T. (2000), “The Dissolution of Protein Coding Genes in Molecular Biology,” in , , and (eds.), The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002), “Rethinking Mechanistic Explanation,” Philosophy of Science (Supplement) 69: S342–S353.Google Scholar
and (1961), “Genetic Regulatory Mechanisms in the Synthesis of Proteins,” Journal of Molecular Biology 3: 318–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1996), The Eighth Day of Creation: The Makers of the Revolution in Biology. Expanded Edition. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.Google Scholar
(2000), Who Wrote the Book of Life? A History of the Genetic Code. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1999a), “The Prion Challenge to the “Central Dogma” of Molecular Biology, 1965–1991, Part I: Prelude to Prions,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 30: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1999b), “The Prion Challenge to the “Central Dogma” of Molecular Biology, 1965–1991, Part II: The Problem with Prions,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 30: 181–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1984), “1953 and All That: A Tale of Two Sciences,” The Philosophical Review 93: 335–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1989), “Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World,” in and (eds.), Scientific Explanation. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, v. 13. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 410–505.Google Scholar
(1999), “The Hegemony of Molecular Biology,” Biology & Philosophy 14: 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1982), From Medical Chemistry to Biochemistry: The Making of a Biomedical Discipline. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendel, Gregor ([1865] 1966), “Experiments on Plant Hybrids,” translated from German and reprinted in and (eds.), The Origin of Genetics, A Mendel Source Book. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman, pp. 1–48.Google Scholar
and (1984), “On the Origins of the Mendelian Laws,” The Journal of Heredity 75: 67–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1998), A History of Molecular Biology. Trans. from French by Matthew Cobb. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(1909), “What Are ‘Factors’ in Mendelian Explanations?” American Breeder's Association Report 5: 365–368.Google Scholar
(1911a), “An Attempt to Analyze the Constitution of the Chromosomes on the Basis of Sex-Limited Inheritance in Drosophila,” Journal of Experimental Zoology 11: 365–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1919), The Physical Basis of Heredity. Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1912), “The Linkage of Two Factors in Drosophila that Are Not Sex-Linked,” Biological Bulletin 23: 174–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (1915), The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity. New York: Henry Holt and Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1961), “The Dependence of Cell-Free Protein Synthesis in E. coli Upon Naturally Occurring or Synthetic Polyribonucleotides,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 47: 1588–1602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1994), The Path to the Double Helix: The Discovery of DNA. Revised Edition. Mineola, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
Oppenheim, Paul and Putnam, Hilary (1958), “Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis,” in , , and (eds.), Concepts, Theories, and the Mind-Body Problem, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, v. 2. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 3–36.Google Scholar
and (1950), “Two Hydrogen-Bonded Spiral Configurations of the Polypeptide Chain,” Journal of the American Chemical Society 72: 5349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1974b), “The Peripherality of Reductionism in the Development of Molecular Genetics,” Journal of the History of Biology 7: 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1993), Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1969), The Coming of the Golden Age: A View of the End of Progress. Garden City, NY: American Museum of Natural History Press.Google Scholar
(2004), “Synthesizing Activities and Interactions in the Concept of a Mechanism,” Philosophy of Science 71: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vries, Hugo de ([1900] 1966), “The Law of Segregation of Hybrids.” Translated from German and reprinted in and (eds.), The Origin of Genetics, A Mendel Source Book. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman, pp. 107–117.Google Scholar
Waters, C. Kenneth (1990), “Why the Anti-Reductionist Consensus Won't Survive the Case of Classical Mendelian Genetics,” in , , and (eds.), PSA 1990, v. 1, East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 125–139.Google Scholar
, , , , and (1988), Molecular Biology of the Gene. 4th ed. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar
and (1953b), “Genetical Implications of the Structure of Deoxyribonucleic Acid,” Nature 171: 964–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, William (1976), “Reductive Explanation: A Functional Account,” in , C. , , and (eds.), PSA 1974. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 671–710.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, William C. (1981), “Robustness, Reliability, and Overdetermination,” in and (eds.), Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 124–163.Google Scholar