David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 39 (4):491-499 (1972)
A belief common among philosophers and biologists alike is that Mendelian genetics has been or is in the process of being reduced to molecular genetics, in the sense of formal theory reduction current in the literature. The purpose of this paper is to show that there are numerous empirical and conceptual difficulties which stand in the way of establishing a systematic inferential relation between Mendelian and molecular genetics. These difficulties, however, have little to do with the traditional objections which have been raised to reduction
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Marion Vorms (2014). The Birth of Classical Genetics as the Junction of Two Disciplines: Conceptual Change as Representational Change. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 48:105-116.
Marion Vorms (2013). Theorizing and Representational Practices in Classical Genetics. Biological Theory 7 (4):311-324.
Martin Carrier & Patrick Finzer (2006). Explanatory Loops and the Limits of Genetic Reductionism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 20 (3):267 – 283.
Sahotra Sarkar (2015). Nagel on reduction11For Discussions, in Some Cases Over Many Decades, Thanks Are Due to Jordi Cat, Alan Love, Ken Schaffner, Abner Shimony, John Stachel, and Bill Wimsatt. Comments by Participants of the Formal Epistemology and the Legacy of Logical Empiricism Workshop and the Audience at a Philosophy Department Seminar at the University of Sydney Were Also Useful. For Comments on Previous Drafts, Thanks Are Due to Justin Garson and Thomas Uebel. [REVIEW] Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 53:43-56.
Yasuo Deguchi (2006). Break Philosophy Through Internally. Topoi 25 (1-2):33-38.
Similar books and articles
Alexander Rosenberg (1978). The Supervenience of Biological Concepts. Philosophy of Science 45 (3):368-386.
Steven Orla Kimbrough (1979). On the Reduction of Genetics to Molecular Biology. Philosophy of Science 46 (3):389-406.
A. Lindenmayer & N. Simon (1980). The Formal Structure of Genetics and the Reduction Problem. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:160 - 170.
William K. Goosens (1978). Reduction by Molecular Genetics. Philosophy of Science 45 (1):73-95.
Tudor M. Baetu (2011). Mechanism Schemas and the Relationship Between Biological Theories. In Phyllis McKay Illari Federica Russo (ed.), Causality in the Sciences. Oxford University Press
C. Kenneth Waters (1990). Why the Antireductionist Consensus Won't Survive the Case of Classical Mendelian Genetics. Philosophy of Science Association 1:125-39.
Philip Gasper (1992). Reduction and Instrumentalism in Genetics. Philosophy of Science 59 (4):655-670.
W. Balzer & C. M. Dawe (1986). Structure and Comparison of Genetic Theories: (2) the Reduction of Character-Factor Genetics to Molecular Genetics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37 (2):177-191.
Russell E. Vance (1996). Heroic Antireductionism and Genetics: A Tale of One Science. Philosophy of Science 63 (3):45.
David L. Hull (1981). Reduction and Genetics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 6 (2):125-144.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads182 ( #16,270 of 1,789,829 )
Recent downloads (6 months)79 ( #12,123 of 1,789,829 )
How can I increase my downloads?