Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T15:16:13.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Chromosome Theory of Mendelian Inheritance: Explanation and Realism in Theory Construction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Marga Vicedo
Marga Vicedo*
Affiliation:
Universitat de València
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Cytogenetics was born of the confluence of two so-far independent fields: cytological studies and breeding studies, which merged through the identification of genes with chromosomes. In this paper I argue that genes were introduced as functional entities. Functional explanations are presented here as a subclass of inferences to the best explanation and I argue that abductive arguments do not offer conclusive proof for the existence of the entities postulated through them. However, functional explanations usually follow a scheme laid out by Fodor (1968): there is a first phase where hypothetical entities are postulated and individuated through their effects; there is a second phase where the physical structures responsible for these effects are sought. I analyze the development of both phases in the construction of the chromosome theory of Mendelian inheritance. I will argue that first-phase theories are important to set conditions of identification for the functions played by a certain structure in a given containing system.

Type
Part III. Biology
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1990 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1990 , 1990 , pp. 179 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

I want to thank Elliott Sober for discussions that helped me see what realism and explanations could be, and to Bas C. van Fraassen for help to understand what they could be not. I gratefully acknowledge a Fulbright/MEC grant that allowed me to do research at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and Princeton University during 1989.

References

Baxter, A. & Farley, J. (1979), “Mendel and Meiosis”, Journal of the History of Biology 12: 137–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boveri, T. (1902), “On Multipolar Mitosis as a Means of Analysis of the Cell Nucleus”, in Foundations of Experimental Embryology, Willier, B.H. and Oppenheimer, J. (eds.), 1964. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 75–97.Google Scholar
Boveri, T. (1903), “Ueber die Konstitution der chromatischen Kern Substanz”, Verhandlungen der deutschen zoologischen Gesellschaft zu, Würzburg 13: 10–33.Google Scholar
Boveri, T. (1904), Ergebnisse über die Konstitution der chromatischen Substanz des Zellkerns. Jena: G. Fischer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridges, C.B. (1916), “Non-disjunction as Proof of the Chromosome Theory of Heredity”, Genetics 1: 1–52; 107-163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlson, E.A. (1966), The Gene: A Critical History. Philadelphia: Saunders.Google Scholar
Castle, W.E. (1912), “The Inconstancy of Unit-characters”, American Naturalist 46: 352–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchill, F.B. (1970), “Hertwig, Weismann and the Meaning of Reduction Division circa 1890”, Isis 61: 429–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Churchill, F.B. (1987), “From Heredity Theory to Vererbung, the Transmission Problem, 1850-1915”, Isis 78: 337–364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coleman, W. (1965), “Cell, Nucleus, and Inheritance: A Historical Study”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 109: 124–158.Google Scholar
Cummins, R. (1975), “Functional Analysis”, Journal of Philosophy 72: 741–765. Reprinted in Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology. An Anthology, E. Sober (ed.), 1984. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, pp. 386-407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, L. (1980), “Theory Construction in Genetics”, in Scientific Discovery: Case Studies, Nickles, T. (ed.). Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, L. (1982), “Aspects of Theory Construction in Biology”, in Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress for Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Hannover: North Holland Pub. Co., pp. 463–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, L. & Maull, N. (1977), “Interfield Theories”, Philosophy of Science 44: 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
East, E.M. (1910), “A Mendelian Interpretation of Variation That Is Apparently Continuous”, American Naturalist 44: 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
East, E.M. (1912), “The Mendelian Notation as a Description of Physiological Facts”, American Naturalist 46: 633–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enç, B. (1979), “Function Attributions and Functional Explanations”, Philosophy of Science 46: 343–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, R. (1986), “What is a Gene?”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 17: 133–173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, J.A. (1968), Psychological Explanation. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Fumerton, R.A. (1980), “Induction and Reasoning to the Best Explanation”, Philosophy of Science 47: 589–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, S.F. (1978), “The Embryological Origins of the Gene Theory”, Journal of the History of Biology 11: 307–351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanson, N.R. (1958), “The Logic of Discovery”, Journal of Philosophy, 55: 1079–89. Reprinted in The Concept of Evidence, P. Achinstein (ed.), 1983. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 53-62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herschel, J.W. (1830), A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy. Reprinted in 1987, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Janssens, F.A. (1909), “La Theorie de la Chiasmatypie: Nouvelle Interpretation des Cineses de Maturation”, La Cellule 25: 389–411.Google Scholar
Kleiner, S.A. (1983), “A New Look at Kepler and Abductive Argument”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 14: 279–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kordig, C.R. (1978), “Discovery and Justification”, Philosophy of Science 45: 110–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1981), Science and Hypothesis. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1982), The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mendel, G. (1865), “Versuche über Pflanzen-Hybriden”, Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereiner IV, Brunn, pp. 1–47.Google Scholar
Morgan, T.H. (1909), “What are ‘Factors’ in Mendelian Explanation?”, Proceedings of the American Breeder’s Association 5: 365–368.Google Scholar
Morgan, T.H. (1910), “Chromosomes and Heredity”, American Naturalist 44: 449–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, T.H. (1911a), “Random Segregation versus Coupling in Mendelian Inheritance”, Science 34: 384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, T.H. (1911b), “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
Morgan, T.H. (1913), “Factors and Unit Characters in Mendelian Heredity”, American Naturalist 47: 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, T.H. (1915a), “The Constitution of the Hereditary Material”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 54: 143–153.Google Scholar
Morgan, T.H. (1915b), “Localization of the Hereditary Material in the Germ Cells”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 1: 420–429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, T.H. (1917), “The Theory of the Gene”, American Naturalist 51: 513–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, T.H. (1919), The Physical Basis of Heredity. Philadelphia and London: J.B. Lippincott.Google Scholar
Morgan, T.H. (1923), “On the Mechanism of Heredity”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 94: 162–197.Google Scholar
Morgan, T.H. (1926a), “Recent Results Relating to Chromosomes and Genetics”, Quarterly Review of Biology 1: 186–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, T.H. (1926b), The Theory of the Gene. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, T.H. (1935), “The Relation of Genetics to Physiology and Medicine”, The Scientific Monthly 41: 5–18.Google Scholar
Morgan, T.H., Sturtevant, A.H., Muller, H.J. and Bridges, C.B. (1915), The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Nilsson-Ehle, H. (1909), “Kreuzungsuntersuchungen an Hafer und Weizen”, Acta Univ. Lund., sev 2,5, no. 2: 1–122.Google Scholar
Peirce, C.S. (1958), Selected Writings. Values in a Universe of Chance, Wiener, Philip P. (ed.), 1966. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Stern, C. (1927), “Die Genetische Analyze der Chromosomen”, Die Naturwissenschaften 22: 465–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturtevant, A.H. (1965), A History of Genetics. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Sutton, W.S. (1903), “The Chromosomes in Heredity”, Biological Bulletin 4: 231–251. Reprinted in Classic Papers in Genetics, Peters, J.A. (ed.), 1959. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, pp. 27-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, P. (1978), “The Best Explanation: Criteria for Theory Choice”, The Journal of Philosophy 75: 76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, B.C. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, B.C. (1985), “Empiricism in the Philosophy of Science”, in Images of Science: Essays on Realism and Empiricism, with a Reply by Bas C. Van Fraassen, Churchland, P.M. and Hooker, C.A. (eds.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 245–308.Google Scholar
Vicedo, M. (forthcoming a), “Realism and Simplicity in the Castle-East Debate on the Stability of the Hereditary Units: Rhetorical Devices versus Substantive Methodology”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
Vicedo, M. (forthcoming b), “T.H. Morgan: Neither an Epistemological Empiricist, Nor a ‘Methodological’ Empiricist”, Biology and Philosophy.Google Scholar
Wilson, E.B. (1914), “The Bearing of Cytological Research on Heredity”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B 88: 333–352.Google Scholar
Whitehouse, H.L.K. (1973), Towards and Understanding of the Mechanism of Heredity. 3rd. edition, London: Erward Arnold.Google Scholar