Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-wgjn4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-08T00:57:39.756Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - On Conceptual Change in Biology: The Case of the Gene

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Richard Burian
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Get access

Summary

The current situation in philosophy of science generally – and in philosophy of biology in particular – is most unsatisfactory. There are at least three general problems that many philosophers thought themselves near to solving in the 1960s–70s, only to find that the anticipated solutions have come unglued: (1) the problem of characterizing and understanding the dynamics of conceptual change in science; (2) the problem of understanding the relationships among theories (including in particular the reduction of one theory to another); and (3) the problem of scientific realism (i.e., the problem of how seriously to take the claims of theoretical science or, at least, of some theoretical scientists, to be describing the world literally in terms of such theoretical entities as genes, protons, DNA molecules, and quarks). This general situation has significant effects on the philosophical study of particular sciences. In philosophy of biology, for example, although one finds several elegant studies of particular topics, the sad fact is that there is no generally satisfactory large-scale synthesis in sight. We have no agreed-on foundation, no generally acceptable starting point from which to delimit and resolve the full range of theoretical problems of interest to scientists and philosophers regarding biology.

This chapter provides a preliminary report on a new approach to conceptual change, together with a sketch of its application to important biological subject matter. The approach offers some promise of providing a satisfactory framework, compatible with scientific realism, for detailed studies of particular scientific developments.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2004

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.)

References

Bateson, W. 1916. “[Review of] Morgan, Sturtevant, Muller, and Bridges, The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity.” Science 44: 536–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benzer, S. 1955. “Fine structure of a genetic region in bacteriophage.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 41: 344–54CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benzer, S. 1956. “Genetic fine structure and its relation to the DNA molecule.” Brookhaven Symposia in Biology 8: 3–16Google Scholar
Benzer, S. 1957. “The elementary units of heredity.” In A Symposium on the Chemical Basis of Heredity, eds. W. D. McElroy and B. Glass. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 70–93
Brown, H. I. 1977. Perception, Theory, and Commitment: The New Philosophy of Science. Chicago: Precedent and University of Chicago Press [1979]
Burian, R. M. 1981–82. “Human sociobiology and genetic determinism.” Philosophical Forum 13: 40–66Google Scholar
Carlson, E. A. 1966. The Gene: A Critical History. Philadelphia and London: W. B. Saunders
Cock, A. G. 1983. “William Bateson's rejection and eventual acceptance of the chromosome theory.” Annals of Science 40: 19–59CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coleman, W. 1970. “Bateson and chromosomes: Conservative thought in science.” Centaurus 15: 228–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, L. 1977. “William Bateson and the promise of Mendelism.” Journal of the History of Biology 10: 87–106CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donnellan, K. 1966. “Reference and definite descriptions.” Philosophical Review 75: 281–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnellan, K. 1970. “Proper names and identifying descriptions.” Synthese 21: 335–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P. 1962. “Explanation, reduction, and empiricism.” In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, eds. H. Feigl and G. Maxwell. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 28–97
Feyerabend, P. 1965. “Problems of empiricism.” In Beyond the Edge of Certainty, University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science, ed. R. G. Colodny. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 145–260
Feyerabend, P. 1970. “Problems of empiricism, part II.” In The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories, University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science, ed. R. G. Colodny. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 275–353
Feyerabend, P. 1975. Against Method. London: New Left Books
Frege, G. 1892. “Über Sinn und Bedentung.” Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik C: 25–50. Translated as “On sense and reference” by Max Black. In Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. 1950, eds. P. Geach and M. Black. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 56–77
Hull, D. L. 1974. Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Hull, D. L. 1976. “Informal aspects of theory reduction.” In PSA 1974, eds. R. S. Cohen, C. A. Hooker, A. C. Michalos, and J. W. V. Evra. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 653–70
Kitcher, P. 1978. “Theories, theorists and theoretical change.” Philosophical Review 87: 519–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1982. “Genes.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 33: 337–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S. 1972. “Naming and necessity.” In Semantics of Natural Language, eds. D. Davidson and G. Harman. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 253–355
Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
Kuhn, T. S. 1970. “Reflections on my critics.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, eds. I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 231–78
Kuhn, T. S. 1977. The Essential Tension. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
Kuhn, T. S. 1983a. “Commensurability, comparability, communicability.” In PSA 1982, eds. P. D. Asquith and T. Nickles. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 669–88
Kuhn, T. S. 1983b. “Rationality and theory choice.” Journal of Philosophy 80: 563–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, T. H., and Bridges, C. B.. 1913. “Dilution effects and bicolorism in certain eye colors of Drosophila.” Journal of Experimental Zoology 15: 429–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, T. H., A. H. Sturtevant, H. J. Muller, and C. B. Bridges. 1915. The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity. New York: Henry Holt and Co.
Nagel, E. 1961. The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World
Putnam, H. 1973. “Explanation and reference.” In Conceptual Change, eds. G. Pearce and P. Maynard. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 199–221
Putnam, H. 1975. “The meaning of meaning.” In Philosophical Papers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 215–71
Ruse, M. E. 1976. “Reduction in genetics.” In PSA 1974, eds. R. S. Cohen, C. A. Hooker, A. C. Michalos, and J. W. V. Evra. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 633–51
Schaffner, K. F. 1969. “The Watson–Crick Model and reductionism.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 20: 325–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, K. F. 1976. “Reductionism in biology.” In PSA 1974, eds. R. S. Cohen, C. A. Hooker, A. C. Michalos, and J. W. V. Evra. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 613–32
Schwarz, S. P. 1977. “Introduction.” In Naming, Necessity, and Natural Kinds, ed. S. P. Schwarz. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 13–41
Stadler, L. J. 1954. “The gene.” Science 120: 811–19CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sturtevant, A. H. 1913a. “A third group of linked genes in Drosophila ampelophila.” Science 37: 990–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturtevant, A. H. 1913b. “The linear arrangement of six sex-linked factors in Drosophila, as shown by their mode of association.” Journal of Experimental Zoology 14: 43–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppe, F. 1977. “Introduction and Afterword – 1977.” In The Structure of Scientific Theories, 2nd ed. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 3–232, 617–730
Watson, J. D., and Crick, F. H. C.. 1953. “Molecular structure of nucleic acids.” Nature 171: 737–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitehouse, H. L. K. 1965. Towards an Understanding of the Mechanism of Heredity. Stanton, England: Arnold
Wimsatt, W. C. 1976. “Reductive explanation: A functional account.” PSA 1974: 671–710Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. 1979. “Reduction and reductionism.” In Current Problems in the Philosophy of Science, eds. H. Kyburg, Jr., and P. Asquith. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×