Skip to main content
Log in

Models in Biology and Physics: What’s the Difference?

  • Published:
Foundations of Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In Making Sense of Life, Keller emphasizes several differences between biology and physics. Her analysis focuses on significant ways in which modelling practices in some areas of biology, especially developmental biology, differ from those of the physical sciences. She suggests that natural models and modelling by homology play a central role in the former but not the latter. In this paper, I focus instead on those practices that are importantly similar, from the point of view of epistemology and cognitive science. I argue that concrete and abstract models are significant in both disciplines, that there are shared selection criteria for models in physics and biology, e.g. familiarity, and that modelling often occurs in a similar fashion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander R.M. (1999) Engineering approaches to chewing and digestion. Science Progress 82: 171–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, A. (2004). Simplicity. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (winter edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2004/entries/simplicity/

  • Blanchette I., Dunbar K. (2000) How analogies are generated: The roles of structural and superficial similarity. Memory & Cognition 28: 108–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchette I., Dunbar K. (2001) Analogy use in naturalistic settings: The influence of audience, emotion, and goals. Memory and Cognition 29: 730–735

    Google Scholar 

  • Clagett M. (1959) The science of mechanics in the middle ages. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins A., Gentner D. (1987) How people construct mental models. In: Holland D., Quinn N. (eds) Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 243–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Da Costa N.C.A., French S.R.D. (2003) Science and partial truth: A unitary approach to models and reasoning in science. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Duhem, P. M. M. (1991). The aim and structure of physical theory (P. P. Wiener, Trans.). Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1906)

  • Dunbar K.N. (2002) Understanding the role of cognition in science: The science as category framework. In: Carruthers P., Stich S., Siegal M. (eds) The cognitive basis of science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 154–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson E.S. (1977) The mind’s eye: Non-verbal thought in technology. Science 197(4306): 827–836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galison P. (1997) Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner D. (1983) Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7: 155–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner D., Gentner D.R. (1983) Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity. In: Gentner D., Stevens A. (eds) Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum

    Google Scholar 

  • Gooding D. (1990) Experiment and the making of meaning: Human agency in scientific observation and experiment. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins R.J., McLeish T.C.B. (2004) Coarse grained model of entropic allostery. Physical Review Letters 93: 098104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hille B. (1984) Ionic channels of excitable membranes. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller E.F. (2002) Making sense of life: Explaining biological development with models, metaphors, and machines. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller E.F. (2007) A clash of two cultures. Nature 445(5): 603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler R.E. (1994) Lords of the fly: Drosophila genetics and the experimental life. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn T.S. (1996) The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed). University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, L. (1990). Demystifying underdetermination. In C. W. Savage (Ed.), Scientific theories, Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. XIV, pp. 267–297). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

  • Leduc S. (1911) The mechanism of life (W. D. Butcher, Trans.). Heinemann, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagaoka H. (1904) Kinetics of a system of particles illustrating the line and the band spectrum and the phenomena of radioactivity. Philosophical Magazine Sixth Series 7: 445–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian N.J. (1988) Reasoning from imagery and analogy in scientific concept formation. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1: 41–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian N.J. (2002) The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science. In: Carruthers P., Stich S., Siegal M. (eds) The cognitive basis of science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 133–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Polya G. (1973) Mathematics and plausible reasoning (Vol. 1). Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Rader K.A. (1998) The mouse people: Murine genetics at the Bussey institution, 1909–1936. Journal of the History of Biology 31: 327–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowbottom, D. P. (Forthcoming). Approximations, idealizations, and “experiments” at the physics–biology interface. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences.

  • Smith, A. (1980). The principles which lead and direct philosophical enquiry: Illustrated by the history of astronomy. In W. P. D. Wightman & J. C. Bryce (Eds.), Vol. III of the Glasgow edition of the works and correspondence of Adam Smith (pp. 31–129). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. Reprinted 1982. (Original work published 1795)

  • Sober E. (1975) Simplicity. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinburne R. (1997) Simplicity as evidence for truth. Marquette University Press, Milwaukee

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson D.W. (1942) On growth and form. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornburn W. (1918) The myth of Occam’s Razor. Mind 27: 345–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trumpler M. (1997) Converging images: Techniques of intervention and forms of representation of sodium-channel proteins in nerve cell membranes. Journal of the History of Biology 30: 55–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky B. (2002) Spatial schemas in depictions. In: Gattis M. (eds) Spatial schemas and abstract thought. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 79–112

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Darrell P. Rowbottom.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rowbottom, D.P. Models in Biology and Physics: What’s the Difference?. Found Sci 14, 281–294 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-009-9160-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-009-9160-4

Keywords

Navigation