Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T21:08:39.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Schaffner's Model of Theory Reduction: Critique and Reconstruction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Rasmus Gr⊘nfeldt Winther
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Schaffner's model of theory reduction has played an important role in philosophy of science and philosophy of biology. Here, the model is found to be problematic because of an internal tension. Indeed, standard antireductionist external criticisms concerning reduction functions and laws in biology do not provide a full picture of the limits of Schaffner's model. However, despite the internal tension, his model usefully highlights the importance of regulative ideals associated with the search for derivational, and embedding, deductive relations among mathematical structures in theoretical biology. A reconstructed Schaffnerian model could therefore shed light on mathematical theory development in the biological sciences and on the epistemology of mathematical practices more generally.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 76 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 119 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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

‡

I gratefully acknowledge the suggestions on earlier drafts provided by Elena Álvarez-Buylla, Michael Dickson, Paul Griffiths, David Hull, Alan Love, Sergio Martínez, Fabrizzio Guerrero McManus, Yuriditzi Pascacio, Alexander Rosenberg, Kenneth Schaffner, Kenneth Waters, and two anonymous reviewers. This research was funded in part by a faculty research grant from the Academic Senate Committee on Research, University of California, Santa Cruz.

References

Bagheri, H. C. (2005), “Unresolved Boundaries of Evolutionary Theory and the Question of How Inheritance Systems Evolve: 75 Years of Debate on the Evolution of Dominance”, Unresolved Boundaries of Evolutionary Theory and the Question of How Inheritance Systems Evolve: 75 Years of Debate on the Evolution of Dominance 306:1–31.Google Scholar
Batterman, R. (2005), “Intertheory Relations in Physics”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2005 ed., http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2005/entries/physics-interrelate/.Google Scholar
Bechtel, W. (2006), Discovering Cell Mechanisms: The Creation of Modern Cell Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beurton, P. J. (2000), “A Unified View of the Gene, or How to Overcome Reductionism”, in Beurton, P. J., Falk, R., and Rheinberger, H. J. (eds.), The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution: Historical and Epistemological Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 286–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandon, R. (1997), “Does Biology Have Laws? The Experimental Evidence”, Does Biology Have Laws? The Experimental Evidence 64 (Proceedings): S444–S457.Google Scholar
Brigandt, I., and Love, A. (2008), “Reductionism in Biology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2008 ed., http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2005/entries/physics-interrelate/.Google Scholar
Burian, R. M. (1993), “Unification and Coherence as Methodological Objectives in the Biological Sciences”, Unification and Coherence as Methodological Objectives in the Biological Sciences 8:301–318.Google Scholar
Callender, C. (1999), “Reducing Thermodynamics to Statistical Mechanics: The Case of Entropy”, Reducing Thermodynamics to Statistical Mechanics: The Case of Entropy 96:348–373.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1999), The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coen, E. S., and Meyerowitz, E. M. (1991), “The War of the Whorls: Genetic Interactions Controlling Flower Development”, The War of the Whorls: Genetic Interactions Controlling Flower Development 353:31–37.Google ScholarPubMed
Cooper, G. (1996), “Theoretical Modeling and Biological Laws”, Theoretical Modeling and Biological Laws 63 (Proceedings): S28–S35.Google Scholar
Craver, C. F. (2007), Explaining the Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, L., and Tabery, J. (2005), “Molecular Biology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2005 ed., http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2005/entries/molecular-biology/.Google Scholar
Davidson, E. (2001), Genomic Regulatory Systems: Development and Evolution. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
De Jong, H. (2002), “Modeling and Simulation of Genetic Regulatory Systems: A Literature Review”, Modeling and Simulation of Genetic Regulatory Systems: A Literature Review 9:67–103.Google ScholarPubMed
Espinosa-Soto, C., Padilla-Longoria, P., and Álvarez-Buylla, E. (2004), “A Gene Regulatory Network Model for Cell-Fate Determination during Arabidopsis thaliana Flower Development That Is Robust and Recovers Experimental Gene Expression Profiles”, A Gene Regulatory Network Model for Cell-Fate Determination during Arabidopsis thaliana Flower Development That Is Robust and Recovers Experimental Gene Expression Profiles 16:2923–2939.Google ScholarPubMed
Fell, D. (2007), “How Can We Understand Metabolism?”, in Boogerd, F. C. et al. (eds.), Systems Biology: Philosophical Foundations. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1962), “Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism”, in Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. (eds.), Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 3. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 28–97.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1965), “Problems of Empiricism”, in Colodny, R. G. (ed.), Beyond the Edge of Certainty: Essays in Contemporary Science and Philosophy. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 145–260.Google Scholar
Field, H. (1973), “Theory Change and the Indeterminacy of Reference”, Theory Change and the Indeterminacy of Reference 70:462–481.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1974), “Special Sciences (or the Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis)”, Special Sciences (or the Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis) 28:97–115.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1974), “Explanation and Scientific Understanding”, Explanation and Scientific Understanding 71:5–19.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1981), “Theoretical Explanation”, in Healey, R. (ed.), Reduction, Time, and Reality: Studies in the Philosophy of the Natural Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–16.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1983), Foundations of Space-Time Theories: Relativistic Physics and Philosophy of Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983), “Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy”, Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy 7:155–170.Google Scholar
Glennan, S. (1996), “Mechanisms and the Nature of Causation”, Mechanisms and the Nature of Causation 44:49–71.Google Scholar
Glennan, S. (2002), “Rethinking Mechanistic Explanation”, Rethinking Mechanistic Explanation 69 (Proceedings): S342–S353.Google Scholar
Goodwin, B. (1963), Temporal Organization in Cells: A Dynamic Theory of Cellular Control Processes. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Halonen, I., and Hintikka, J. (2005), “Toward a Theory of the Process of Explanation”, Toward a Theory of the Process of Explanation 143:5–61.Google Scholar
Hartwell, L., Hopfield, J., Leibler, S., and Murray, A. (1999), “From Molecular to Modular Cell Biology”, From Molecular to Modular Cell Biology 402:C47–C52.Google ScholarPubMed
Hempel, C. (1966), Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hempel, C., and Oppenheim, P. (1948), “Studies in the Logic of Explanation”, Studies in the Logic of Explanation 15:135–175.Google Scholar
Holyoak, K. J., and Thagard, P. (1989), “Analogical Mapping by Constraint Satisfaction”, Analogical Mapping by Constraint Satisfaction 13:295–355.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1972), “Reduction in Genetics—Biology or Philosophy?”, Reduction in Genetics—Biology or Philosophy? 39:491–499.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1974), Philosophy of Biological Sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1976), “Informal Aspects of Theory Reduction”, in Cohen, R. S. et al. (eds.), PSA 1974: Proceedings of the 1974 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Dordrecht: Reidel, 653–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1981), “Reduction and Genetics”, Reduction and Genetics 6:125–143.Google ScholarPubMed
Hull, D. (2002), “Varieties of Reductionism: Derivation and Gene Selection”, in Regenmortel, M. Van and Hull, D. (eds.), Promises and Limits of Reductionism in the Biomedical Sciences. London: Wiley, 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffman, S. (1993), The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, J. (1992), “Multiple Realization and the Metaphysics of Reduction”, Multiple Realization and the Metaphysics of Reduction 52:1–26.Google Scholar
Kitano, H. (2002), “Looking beyond the Details: A Rise in System-Oriented Approaches in Genetics and Molecular Biology”, Looking beyond the Details: A Rise in System-Oriented Approaches in Genetics and Molecular Biology 41:1–10.Google ScholarPubMed
Kitcher, P. (1981), “Explanatory Unification”, Explanatory Unification 48:251–281.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1984), “1953 and All That: A Tale of Two Sciences”, 1953 and All That: A Tale of Two Sciences 93:335–373.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1989), “Explanatory Unification and Causal Structure”, Explanatory Unification and Causal Structure 13:410–505.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1999), “Unification as a Regulative Ideal”, Unification as a Regulative Ideal 7:337–348.Google Scholar
Lange, M. (2000), Natural Laws in Scientific Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, E. A. (1988), The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Machamer, P., Darden, L., and Craver, C. F. (2000), “Thinking about Mechanisms”, Thinking about Mechanisms 67:1–25.Google Scholar
Markman, A. B. (1997), “Constraints on Analogical Inference”, Constraints on Analogical Inference 21:373–418.Google Scholar
Mendoza, L., and Álvarez-Buylla, E. (1998), “Dynamics of the Regulatory Genetic Network for Arabidopsis thaliana Flower Morphogenesis”, Dynamics of the Regulatory Genetic Network for Arabidopsis thaliana Flower Morphogenesis 193:307–319.Google ScholarPubMed
Mesarovic, M. D., ed. (1968), Systems Theory and Biology. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, E. (1949), “The Meaning of Reduction in the Natural Sciences”, in Stauffer, R. (ed.), Science and Civilization. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 99–145.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. (1961), The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, E. (1979), “Issues in the Logic of Reductive Explanations”, in Teleology Revisited and Other Essays in the Philosophy and History of Science. New York: Columbia University Press, 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okasha, S. (2007), Evolution and the Levels of Selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O’Malley, M. A., and Dupré, J. (2005), “Fundamental Issues in Systems Biology”, Fundamental Issues in Systems Biology 27:1270–1276.Google ScholarPubMed
Pemmaraju, S., and Skiena, S. (2003), Computational Discrete Mathematics: Combinatorics and Graph Theory with Mathematica®. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prusinkiewicz, P., Erasmus, Y., Lane, B., Harder, D., and Coen, E. (2007), “Evolution and Development of Infloresence Architectures”, Evolution and Development of Infloresence Architectures 316:1452–1456.Google Scholar
Psillos, S. (1999), Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks the Truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rashevsky, N. (1954), “Topology and Life”, Topology and Life 16:317–348.Google Scholar
Rashevsky, N. (1961), Mathematical Principles in Biology and their Application. Springfield, IL: Thomas.Google Scholar
Regev, A., and Shapiro, E. (2002), “Cells as Computation”, Cells as Computation 419: 343.Google ScholarPubMed
Rosen, R. (1964), “Abstract Biological Systems as Sequential Machines”, Abstract Biological Systems as Sequential Machines 26:103–111.Google ScholarPubMed
Rosen, R. (1985), “Organisms as Causal Systems Which Are Not Mechanisms: An Essay into the Nature of Complexity”, in Rosen, Robert (ed.), Theoretical Biology and Complexity. San Diego: Academic Press, 165–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1978), “The Supervenience of Biological Concepts”, The Supervenience of Biological Concepts 45:368–386.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1985), The Structure of Biological Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1997), “Reductionism Redux: Computing the Embryo”, Reductionism Redux: Computing the Embryo 12:445–470.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (2002), “Reductionism in a Historical Science”, in Regenmortel, M. Van and Hull, D. (eds.), Promises and Limits of Reductionism in the Biomedical Sciences. London: Wiley, 125–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (2006), Darwinian Reductionism; or, How to Stop Worrying and Love Molecular Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, M. (1976), “Reduction in Genetics”, Cohen, in R. S. et al. (eds.), PSA 1974: Proceedings of the 1974 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Dordrecht: Reidel, 633–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salazar-Ciudad, I., and Jernvall, J. (2002), “A Gene Network Model Accounting for Development and Evolution of Mammalian Teeth”, A Gene Network Model Accounting for Development and Evolution of Mammalian Teeth 99:8116–8120.Google ScholarPubMed
Sarkar, S. (1992), “Models of Reduction and Categories of Reductionism”, Models of Reduction and Categories of Reductionism 91:167–194.Google Scholar
Sarkar, S. (1998), Genetics and Reductionism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkar, S. (2001), “Reductionism in Genetics and the Human Genome Project”, in Singh, R. S. et al. (eds.), Thinking about Evolution: Historical, Philosophical, and Political Perspectives, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 235–252.Google Scholar
Schaffner, K. F., (1967), “Approaches to Reduction”, in Philosophy of Science 34:137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, K. F. (1969), “The Watson-Crick Model and Reductionism”, The Watson-Crick Model and Reductionism 20:325–348.Google Scholar
Schaffner, K. F. (1976), “Reductionism in Biology: Prospects and Problems”, in Cohen, R. S. et al. (eds.), PSA 1974: Proceedings of the 1974 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Dordrecht: Reidel, 613–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, K. F. (1993a), Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schaffner, K. F. (1993b), “Theory Structure, Reduction, and Disciplinary Integration in Biology”, Theory Structure, Reduction, and Disciplinary Integration in Biology 8:319–347.Google Scholar
Schaffner, K. F. (2006), “Reduction: The Cheshire Cat Problem and a Return to Roots”, Reduction: The Cheshire Cat Problem and a Return to Roots 151:377–402.Google Scholar
Schaffner, K. F. (2007), “Theories, Models, and Equations in Systems Biology”, in Boogerd, F. C. (ed.), Systems Biology: Philosophical Foundations. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimony, A. (1987), “The Methodology of Synthesis: Parts and Wholes in Low-Energy Physics”, in Kargon, R. and Achinstein, P. (eds.), Kelvin's Baltimore Lectures and Modern Theoretical Physics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 399–423.Google Scholar
Sklar, L. (1999), “The Reduction (?) of Thermodynamics to Statistical Mechanics”, The Reduction (?) of Thermodynamics to Statistical Mechanics 95:187–202.Google Scholar
Smolen, P., Baxter, D. A., and Byrne, J. H. (2000), “Modeling Transcriptional Control in Gene Networks—Methods, Recent Results, and Future Directions”, Modeling Transcriptional Control in Gene Networks—Methods, Recent Results, and Future Directions 62:247–292.Google ScholarPubMed
Sober, E. (1997), “Two Outbreaks of Lawlessness in Recent Philosophy of Biology”, Two Outbreaks of Lawlessness in Recent Philosophy of Biology 64 (Proceedings): S458–S467.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1999), “The Multiple Realizability Argument against Reductionism”, The Multiple Realizability Argument against Reductionism 66:542–564.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. (1973), “Boolean Formalization of Genetic Control Circuits”, Boolean Formalization of Genetic Control Circuits 42:563–585.Google ScholarPubMed
Tyson, J. J., and Othmer, H. G. (1978), “The Dynamics of Feedback Control Circuits in Biochemical Pathways”, in Rosen, R. and Snell, F. M. (eds.), Progress in Theoretical Biology, Vol. 5. New York: Academic Press, 1–62.Google Scholar
van der Steen, Wim J. (1993), “Towards Disciplinary Disintegration in Biology”, Towards Disciplinary Disintegration in Biology 8:259–275.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1970), “On the Extension of Beth's Semantics of Physical Theories”, On the Extension of Beth's Semantics of Physical Theories 37:325–339.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1972), “A Formal Approach to the Philosophy of Science”, in Colodny, R. (ed.), Paradigms and Paradoxes: The Philosophical Challenge of the Quantum Domain. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 303–366.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1989), Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Bertalanffy, L. ([1933] 1962), Modern Theories of Development: An Introduction to Theoretical Biology. New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968), General System Theory. Foundations, Development, Applications. New York: Braziller.Google Scholar
Waters, C. K. (1990), “Why the Antireductionist Consensus Won’t Survive the Case of Classical Mendelian Genetics”, in Fine, A., Forbes, M., and Wessels, L. (eds.), PSA 1990: Proceedings of the 1990 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 125–139.Google Scholar
Waters, C. K. (1998), “Causal Regularities in the Biological World of Contingent Distributions”, Causal Regularities in the Biological World of Contingent Distributions 13:5–36.Google Scholar
Waters, C. K. (2000), “Molecules Made Biological”, Molecules Made Biological 4 (214): 539–564..Google Scholar
Weber, M. (2005), Philosophy of Experimental Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weisberg, M. (2009), “Models for Modeling”, in preparation.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1976), “Reductive Explanation: A Functional Account”, in Cohen, R. S. et al. (eds.), PSA 1974: Proceedings of the 1974 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Dordrecht: Reidel, 671–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (2007), Re-engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings: Piecewise Approximations to Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winther, R. G. (2006a), “Fisherian and Wrightian Perspectives in Evolutionary Genetics and Model-Mediated Imposition of Theoretical Assumptions”, Fisherian and Wrightian Perspectives in Evolutionary Genetics and Model-Mediated Imposition of Theoretical Assumptions 240:218–232.Google Scholar
Winther, R. G. (2006b), “Parts and Theories in Compositional Biology”, Parts and Theories in Compositional Biology 21:471–499.Google Scholar
Winther, R. G. (2008), “Systemic Darwinism”, Systemic Darwinism 105:11833–11838.Google ScholarPubMed
Winther, R. G. (2009), “Part-Whole Science”, Synthese, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar