Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:43:06.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - What Methods Do Life Scientists Use?

A Brief History with Philosophical Implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 September 2020

By
Erik L. Peterson
Edited by
Kostas Kampourakis  and
Tobias Uller
Kostas Kampourakis
Affiliation:
Université de Genève
Tobias Uller
Affiliation:
Lunds Universitet, Sweden
Get access

Summary

This chapter is about the methods used in the life sciences. In it, I present a case that there are a limited number of methods that life scientists employ. On its face, this conclusion seems neither exciting nor novel; that is, unless we consider that the life sciences have long been engaged in a hidden battle between two opposing views regarding the number of scientific methods that exist. I am arguing against both sides. The two standard positions that I am arguing against are: (1) that there exists a single, if idealized, Scientific Method (i.e., unity), and (2) that the sciences are individualistic and, therefore, scientists operate without a common method (i.e., anarchy). I am asserting that in contrast to unity or anarchy, there are several but a limited number of methods possible in the bio-sciences. By combining general methods and submethods, there could be more than a dozen possible valid means by which to conduct a life sciences inquiry. I offer a table sketching out these methods and submethods at the conclusion of the chapter. But before I launch into explaining these two standard views and why a middle way, endorsing several but a limited number of methods, seems preferable, I want to begin with an example of modern life science in vivo, as it were.

Type
Chapter
Information
Philosophy of Science for Biologists , pp. 168 - 192
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

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

Allen, G. (1978). Life Science in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Autoimmunity Research Foundation. 2015. Differences between in vitro, in vivo, and in silico studies. The Marshall Protocol Knowledge Base. https://mpkb.org/home/patients/assessing_literature/in_vitro_studies (accessed May 22, 2019)Google Scholar
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Bonner, J. J. (2005). Which Scientific Method Should We Teach and When? American Biology Teacher 67(5): 262–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M. & Lahr, D. (2019). “‘Micro Snails’ We Scraped From Sidewalk Cracks Help Unlock Details of Ancient Earth’s Biological Evolution,” The Conversation (Feb. 28). https://theconversation.com/micro-snails-we-scraped-from-sidewalk-cracks-help-unlock-details-of-ancient-earths-biological-evolution-112362Google Scholar
Burns, W. E. (2016). The Scientific Revolution in Global Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, A. F. (1990). Science and Its Fabrication. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, W. (1971). Biology in the Nineteenth Century: Problems of Form, Function, and Transformation. New York: J. Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Commoner, B. (1961). In Defense of Biology. Science 133(3466): 1745–1748.Google Scholar
Croft, W. J. (2006). Under the Microscope: A Brief History of Microscopy. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1868). The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication. 2 vols. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1902). Charles Darwin: His Life Told in an Autobiographical Chapter, and in a Selected Series of His Published Letters, ed. Darwin, F.. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think. Boston: D. C. Heath & Co.Google Scholar
Dupré, J. (1993). The Disorder of Things: The Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Endersby, J. (2007). A Guinea Pig’s History of Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Falk, R. (2000). The Gene: A Concept in Tension. In Beurton, P., Falk, R., & Rheinberger, H.-J. (eds.), The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution, pp. 317–348. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Feibleman, J. K. (1972). Scientific Method: The Hypothetico-Experimental Laboratory Procedure of the Physical Sciences. The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1993 [1975]). Against Method. 3rd ed. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Forster, M. (2011). The Debate Between Whewell and Mill on the Nature of Scientific Induction. Handbook of the History of Logic 10. doi: 1016/B978-0-444-52936-7.50003-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galison, P. (1996). Introduction: The Context of Disunity. In Galison, P. & Stump, D. J. (eds.), The Disunity of Science, pp. 1–33. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Galton, F. (1871). Experiments in Pangenesis, by Breeding from Rabbits of a Pure Variety, into Whose Circulation Blood Taken from Other Varieties Had Previously Been Largely Transfused. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 19: 123–29.Google Scholar
Gaukroger, S. (2006). The Emergence of a Scientific Culture: Science and the Shaping of Modernity, 1210–1685. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, K. (1963 [1939]). The Organism. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1980). Darwin's Middle Road. In The Panda’s Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Hirshfeld, A. (2001). Parallax: The Race to Measure the Cosmos. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Huff, T. (2010). Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution: A Global Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kampourakis, K. (2017). Making Sense of Genes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, L. (1993). The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kohler, R. E. (1994). Lords of the Fly: Drosophila Genetics and the Experimental Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Krimsky, S. (2003). Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research? New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A. (eds.) (1970). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1981). Science and Hypothesis: Historical Essays on Scientific Methodology. Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1984). Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lawson, A. E. (2010). How Many Scientific Methods Exist? The American Biology Teacher. 72(6): 334–336.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (2004). What Makes Biology Unique? Considerations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1882 [1843]). System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive. 8th ed. New York: Harper & Bros. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27942/27942-h/27942-h.htmlGoogle Scholar
Morgan, T. H. (1934). “The Relation of Genetics to Physiology and Medicine,” Nobel Lecture. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Media AB. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1933/morgan/lecture (accessed May 27, 2019).Google Scholar
Newton, I. (1999 [1726]). Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. 3rd ed. Cohen, I. B. & Whitman, A, trans. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Nordenskiöld, E. (1935 [1928]). The History of Biology. 2nd ed. Eyre, L. B., trans. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Peterson, E. (2017). The Life Organic: The Theoretical Biology Club and the Roots of Epigenetics. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Riskin, J. (2016). The Restless Clock: A History of the Centuries‐Long Arguments Over What Makes Living Things Tick. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rudolph, J. (2005). Epistemology for the Masses: The Origins of “The Scientific Method” in American Schools. History of Education Quarterly 45(3): 341–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, M. (1975). Darwin’s Debt to Philosophy: An Examination of the Influence of the Philosophical Ideas of John F. W. Herschel and William Whewell on the Development of Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 6(2): 159–181.Google Scholar
Russell, E. S. (1972 [1930]). The Interpretation of Development and Heredity. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Russell, E. S. (1982 [1916]). Form and Function: A Contribution to the History of Animal Morphology. Reprint ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sloan, P. R. (1972). John Locke, John Ray, and the Problem of the Natural System. Journal of the History of Biology 5: 1–53.Google Scholar
Sloan, P. R. (1976). The Buffon–Linnaeus Controversy. Isis 67: 356–375.Google Scholar
Stengers, I. (2018). Another Science Is Possible: A Manifesto for Slow Science. Muecke, S., trans. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Thagard, P. (1977). Darwin and Whewell. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 8: 353–356.Google Scholar
van Berkel, K. (2000). Descartes’ Debt to Beeckman. In Gaukroger, S., Schuster, J., & Sutton, J. (eds.), Descartes’ Natural Philosophy, pp. 46–59. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Westfall, R. S. (1971). The Construction of Modern Science: Mechanisms and Mechanics. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Whewell, W. (1847). The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, Founded Upon Their History. 2 vols, 2nd ed. London: John W. Parker.Google Scholar
Whewell, W. (1984 [1857]). Selections from History of the Inductive Sciences from the Earliest to the Present Time. 3rd ed. In Elkhana, Y. (ed.), Selected Writings on the History of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. B. (1925 [1896]). The Cell in Development and Heredity. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Wootton, D. (2015). The Invention of Science: A New History of the Scientific Revolution. London: Penguin.Google Scholar

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
×