Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-pkt8n Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-19T21:03:19.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why the Anti-reductionist Consensus Won’t Survive the Case of Classical Mendelian Genetics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

C. Kenneth Waters
C. Kenneth Waters*
Affiliation:
Rice University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Philosophers now treat the relationship between Classical Mendelian Genetics and molecular biology as a paradigm of nonreduction and this example is playing an increasingly prominent role in debates about the reducibility of theories ranging from macrosocial science to folk psychology. Patricia Churchland (1986), for example, draws an analogy between the alleged elimination of the “causal mainstay” of classical genetics and her view that today’s psychological theory will be eliminated by neuroscience. Patricia Kitcher takes an autonomous rather than eliminativist view of the reported nonreduction in genetics and reasons that psychology will retain a similar autonomy from lower level sciences (1980 and 1982). Although Churchland and Kitcher offer different interpretations of the apparent failure of molecular biology to reduce classical genetics, they agree that this failure will help illuminate theoretical relations between psychology and lower level sciences. The appearance of the Mendelian example along side the usual ones from physics and chemistry marks a turning point in philosophy of science.

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. 125 - 139
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 thank Bob Knox for stimulating discussions which influenced my thinking on this subject. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the University of Pittsburgh and Indiana University where audiences provided helpful feedback. The National Science Foundation funded this research (Grant No. DIR 89-12221) and the Center for Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh provided additional support and hospitality while I worked on this paper.

References

Beatty, J. (1983). “The Insights and Oversights of Molecular Genetics: The Place of the Evolutionary Perspective” in Asquith, P. and Nickles, T. (eds.) PSA 1982, Volume 2, East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Bhattacharyya, M.K., Smith, A.M., Ellis, T.H.N., Hedley, C. and Martin, C. (1990), “The Wrinkled-Seed Character of Pea Described by Mendel is Caused by a Transposon-like Insertion in a Gene Encoding Starch-Branching Enzyme, Cell, 60: 115-22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, E.A. (1989), The Gene, A Critical History, Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Churchland, P.S. (1988), Neurophilosophy, Cambridge, MA: Bradford/MIT Press.Google Scholar
Darden, L. and Maull, N. (1977), “Interfield Theories”, Philosophy of Science 44: 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holliday, R. (1964), “A Mechanism for Gene Conversion in Fungi,” Genetics Research 5: 282–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, C.A. (1981), “Towards a General Theory of Reduction, Part I: Historical and Scientific Setting, Part II: Identity in Reduction, Part III: Cross-categorical Reduction”, Dialogue 20: 38–59, 201-36, 496-529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1972), “Reduction in Genetics—Biology or Philosophy?” Philosophy of Science 39 491-99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1974), Philosophy of Biological Science, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1984), “1953 and All That. A Tale of Two Sciences”, The Philosophical Review 93: 335–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Low, K. B. (1988) “Genetic Recombination: A Brief Overview,” in Low, K.B. (ed.) The Recombination of the Genetic Material, San Diego: Academic Press, Inc., pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
Maull, N. (1977) “Unifying Science Without Reduction”, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 8: 143–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, T.H. (1926), The Theory of the Gene New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, E. (1961). The Structure of Science, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, H. and Dressler, D. (1979), “Branch Migration in Recombination”, Cold Spring Harbor Symposium of Quantitative Biology 43: 957–90.Google Scholar
Potter, H. and Dressler, D. (1988), “Genetic Recombination: Molecular Biology, Biochemistry, and Evolution,” in Brooks Low, K. (ed.) The Recombination of the Genetic Material, San Diego: Academic Press, Inc., pp. 218–283.Google Scholar
Richardson, R.C. (1979), “Functionalism and Reductionism”, Philosophy of Science 48: 533–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, R.C. (1982) “Discussion: How Not to Reduce a Functional Psychology”, Philosophy of Science 49: 125-37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1985), The Structure of Biological Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, M. (1969), “Reduction in Genetics”, Cohen, R.S. et al. (eds.), PSA 1974, Boston: D. Reidel, pp. 653-70.Google Scholar
Schaffner, K. (1969), “The Watson-Crick Model and Reductionism”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 20, 325-48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, K. (1976) “Reductionism in Biology: Prospects and Problems”, Cohen, R.S. et al. (eds.), PSA 1974, Boston: D. Reidel, pp. 613-32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, D.T. et al (1986) Introduction to Genetic Analysis, New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Waters, C.K. (1989), “The Universal Laws of Biology”, presented to the 1989 Meeting of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association, abstract in Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 62: 74.Google Scholar
Waters, C.K. (1990), “Rosenberg’s Rebellion”, Biology and Philosophy 5: 225–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, C.K. (forthcoming), “Laws, Kinds and Generalities in Biology”, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar