Beyond theoretical reduction and layer-cake antireduction: How DNA retooled genetics and transformed biological practice
Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||Watson and Crick’s discovery of the structure of DNA led to developments that transformed many biological sciences. But what were the relevant developments and how did they transform biology? Much of the philosophical discussion concerning this question can be organized around two opposing views: theoretical reductionism and layer-cake antireductionism. Theoretical reductionist and their anti-reductionist foes hold two assumptions in common. First, both hold that biological knowledge is structured like a layer cake, with some biological sciences, such as molecular biology cast at lower levels of organization, and others, such as classical genetics, cast at higher levels. Second, both assume that scientific knowledge is structured by theory and that the productivity of scientific research depends on whether the underlying theory identifies the fundamentals upon which the phenomena to be explained and investigated depend. In the first part of this paper, I challenge these assumptions. In the second part, I show how recasting the basic theory of classical genetics made it possible to retool the methodologies of genetics. It was the investigative power of these retooled methodologies, and not the explanatory power of a gene-based theory, that transformed biology.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Vanessa Lux (2008). The Concept of the Gene in Psychiatric Genetics and its Consequences for the Concept of Mental Illness. Poiesis and Praxis 6 (1-2):65-77.
David Lauer (2012). Expressivism and the Layer Cake Picture of Discursive Practice. Philosophia 40 (1):55-73.
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.
Tudor Baetu (forthcoming). Mechanism Schemas and the Relationship Between Biological Theories. In J. Williamson P. McKay (ed.), Causality in the Sciences.
C. Kenneth Waters (1990). Why the Antireductionist Consensus Won't Survive the Case of Classical Mendelian Genetics. Philosophy of Science Association 1:125-39.
U. Deichmann (2004). Early Responses to Avery Et Al.'S Paper on DNA as Hereditary Material. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 34 (2):207-232.
Richard M. Burian (2005). The Epistemology of Development, Evolution, and Genetics: Selected Essays. Cambridge University Press.
Steven Orla Kimbrough (1979). On the Reduction of Genetics to Molecular Biology. Philosophy of Science 46 (3):389-406.
Massimo Pigliucci (2008). The Proper Role of Population Genetics in Modern Evolutionary Theory. Biological Theory 3 (4):316-324.
Philip Gasper (1992). Reduction and Instrumentalism in Genetics. Philosophy of Science 59 (4):655-670.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads45 ( #29,057 of 739,953 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #20,701 of 739,953 )
How can I increase my downloads?