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
- PART II REASONING STRATEGIES: RELATING FIELDS, RESOLVING ANOMALIES
- 5 Interfield Theories with Nancy Maull
- 6 Theory Construction in Genetics
- 7 Relations Among Fields in the Evolutionary Synthesis
- 8 Selection Type Theories with Joseph A. Cain
- 9 Strategies for Anomaly Resolution: Diagnosis and Redesign
- 10 Exemplars, Abstractions, and Anomalies: Representations and Theory Change in Mendelian and Molecular Genetics
- 11 Strategies for Anomaly Resolution in the Case of Adaptive Mutation
- PART III DISCOVERING MECHANISMS: CONSTRUCTION, EVALUATION, REVISION
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
5 - Interfield Theories with Nancy Maull
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
- PART II REASONING STRATEGIES: RELATING FIELDS, RESOLVING ANOMALIES
- 5 Interfield Theories with Nancy Maull
- 6 Theory Construction in Genetics
- 7 Relations Among Fields in the Evolutionary Synthesis
- 8 Selection Type Theories with Joseph A. Cain
- 9 Strategies for Anomaly Resolution: Diagnosis and Redesign
- 10 Exemplars, Abstractions, and Anomalies: Representations and Theory Change in Mendelian and Molecular Genetics
- 11 Strategies for Anomaly Resolution in the Case of Adaptive Mutation
- PART III DISCOVERING MECHANISMS: CONSTRUCTION, EVALUATION, REVISION
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
INTRODUCTION
Interactions between different areas or branches or fields of science have often been obscured by current emphasis on the relations between different scientific theories. Although some philosophers have indicated that different branches may be related, the actual focus has been on the relations between theories within the branches. For example, Ernest Nagel has discussed the reduction of one branch of science to another (1961, Ch. 11). But the relation that Nagel describes is really nothing more than the derivational reduction of the theory or experimental law of one branch of science to the theory of another branch.
We, in contrast to Nagel, are interested in the interrelations between the areas of science that we call fields. For example, cytology, genetics, and biochemistry are more naturally called fields than theories. Fields may have theories within them, such as the classical theory of the gene in genetics; such theories we call intrafield theories. In addition, and more important for our purposes here, interrelations between fields may be established via interfield theories. For example, the fields of genetics and cytology are related via the chromosome theory of Mendelian heredity. The existence of such interfield theories has been obscured by analyses such as Nagel's that erroneously conflate theories and fields and see interrelations as derivational reductions.
The purpose of this chapter is, first, to draw the distinction between field and intrafield theory, and, then, more importantly, to discuss the generation of heretofore unrecognized interfield theories and their functions in relating two fields.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Reasoning in Biological DiscoveriesEssays on Mechanisms, Interfield Relations, and Anomaly Resolution, pp. 127 - 148Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2006
References
, , and (1965), “Suppression of and Complementation among Mutants of the Regulatory Gene of the Lactose Operon of Escherichia coli,” Journal of Molecular Biology 14: 300–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boveri, Theodor ([1902] 1964), “On Multipolar Mitosis as a Means of Analysis of the Cell Nucleus,” in and (eds.), Foundations of Experimental Embryology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 75–97.Google Scholar
(1904), Ergebnisse über die Konstitution der chromatischen Substanz des Zellkerns. Jena: G. Fischer.Google Scholar
(1916), “Non-disjunction as Proof of the Chromosome Theory of Heredity,” Genetics 1: 1–52, 107–163.Google ScholarPubMed
(1913), “The Mendelian Ratio in Relation to Certain Orthopteran Chromosomes,” The Journal of Morphology 24: 487–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1965), “Cell, Nucleus, and Inheritance: A Historical Study,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 109: 124–158.Google Scholar
(1970), “Bateson and Chromosomes: Conservative Thought in Science,” Centaurus 15: 228–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1974), Reasoning in Scientific Change: The Field of Genetics at Its Beginnings. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
(1900), “Sur la Fermentation du Galactose et sur l'Accoutamance des levures à ce Sucre,” Annales de l'Institute Pasteur 14: 138–189.Google Scholar
(1894), “Einfluss der Konfiguration auf die Wirkung der Enzyme,” Berichte der deutschen chemische Gesellschaft 27: 2985–2993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1972), Molecules and Life: Historical Essays on the Interplay of Chemistry and Biology. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
and (1966), “Isolation of the Lac Repressor,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 56: 1891–1898.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1967), “The Lac Operator is DNA,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 58: 2415–2421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1961), “Genetic Regulatory Mechanisms in the Synthesis of Proteins,” Journal of Molecular Biology 3: 318–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1973), “Protein Shape and Biological Control,” Scientific American 229: 52–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1970), “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1974), Progress in Modern Biology: An Alternative to Reduction. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
(1977), “Unifying Science Without Reduction,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 8: 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1963), “Allosteric Proteins and Cellular Control Systems,” Journal of Molecular Biology 6: 306–329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (1965), “On the Nature of Allosteric Transitions: A Plausible Model,” Journal of Molecular Biology 12: 88–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(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
, , , and (1915), The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity. New York: Henry Holt and Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppenheim, Paul and Hilary Putnam (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 (1959), “The Genetic Control and Cytoplasmic Expression of ‘Inducibility’ in the Synthesis of β–galatosidase by E. coli,” Journal of Molecular Biology 1: 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1974a), “Logic of Discovery and Justification in Regulatory Genetics,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 4: 349–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1974b), “The Peripherality of Reduction in the Development of Molecular Biology,” Journal of the History of Biology 7: 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, Kenneth (1974c), “The Unity of Science and Theory Construction in Molecular Biology,” in and (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Science: Proceedings of Section L, AAAS 1969. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, v. 11. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing, pp. 497–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapere, Dudley (1973), Unpublished MS. Presented at IUHPS-LMPS Conference on Relations Between History and Philosophy of Science. Jyväskylä, Finland.
Shapere, Dudley (1974a), “Scientific Theories and Their Domains,” in (ed.), The Structure of Scientific Theories. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp. 518–565.Google Scholar
(1974), The Structure of Scientific Theories. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Sutton, Walter ([1903] 1959), “The Chromosomes in Heredity,” Biological Bulletin 4: 231–251. Reprinted in (ed.), Classic Papers in Genetics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 27–41.Google Scholar
(1892), The Germ-Plasm, A Theory of Heredity. Translated by W. N. Parker and H. Röonfeldt. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.Google Scholar