25 found
Sort by:
Disambiguations:
James R. Griesemer [13]James Griesemer [12]
  1. James Griesemer (2013). David Sepkoski . Rereading the Fossil Record: The Growth of Paleobiology as an Evolutionary Discipline . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012. Pp. 432+Index. $55.00 (Cloth). [REVIEW] Hopos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 3 (2):360-364.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. James Griesemer (2013). Formalization and the Meaning of “Theory” in the Inexact Biological Sciences. Biological Theory 7 (4):298-310.
    Exact sciences are described as sciences whose theories are formalized. These are contrasted to inexact sciences, whose theories are not formalized. Formalization is described as a broader category than mathematization, involving any form/content distinction allowing forms, e.g., as represented in theoretical models, to be studied independently of the empirical content of a subject-matter domain. Exactness is a practice depending on the use of theories to control subject-matter domains and to align theoretical with empirical models and not merely a state of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. James Griesemer (2013). Integration of Approaches in David Wake's Model-Taxon Research Platform for Evolutionary Morphology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (4):525-536.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. James Griesemer (2011). Philosophy and Tinkering. Biology and Philosophy 26 (2):269-279.
    I characterize Wimsatt’s approach to philosophy of science as philosophy for science and then briefly consider a theme emerging from his work that informs just one of the many current developments in philosophy of biology that he inspired: scaffolding as a problem of mechanistic explanation for functionalists.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Ayelet Shavit & James Griesemer (2011). Transforming Objects Into Data: How Minute Technicalities of Recording “Species Location” Entrench a Basic Challenge for Biodiversity. In M. Carrier & A. Nordmann (eds.), Science in the Context of Application. Springer. 169--193.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Ayelet Shavit & James Griesemer (2009). There and Back Again, or the Problem of Locality in Biodiversity Surveys. Philosophy of Science 76 (3):273-294.
    We argue that ‘locality’, perhaps the most mundane term in ecology, holds a basic ambiguity: two concepts of space—nomothetic and idiographic—which are both necessary for a rigorous resurvey to “the same” locality in the field, are committed to different practices with no common measurement. A case study unfolds the failure of the standard assumption that an exogenous grid of longitude and latitude, as fine‐grained as one wishes, suffices for revisiting a species locality. We briefly suggest a scale‐dependent “resolution” for this (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. William Bechtel, Werner Callebaut, James R. Griesemer & Jeffrey C. Schank (2006). Bill Wimsatt on Multiple Ways of Getting at the Complexity of Nature. Biological Theory 1 (2):213-219.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. James Griesemer (2006). Theoretical Integration, Cooperation, and Theories as Tracking Devices. Biological Theory 1 (1):4-7.
  9. James R. Griesemer & Elihu M. Gerson (2006). Of Mice and Men and Low Unit Cost. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 37 (2):363-372.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. James R. Griesemer (2005). The Informational Gene and the Substantial Body: On the Generalization of Evolutionary Theory by Abstraction. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 86 (1):59-116.
  11. James Griesemer, Matthew H. Haber, Grant Yamashita & Lisa Gannett (2005). Critical Notice: Cycles of Contingency – Developmental Systems and Evolution. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 20 (2-3):517-544.
    The themes, problems and challenges of developmental systems theory as described in Cycles of Contingency are discussed. We argue in favor of a robust approach to philosophical and scientific problems of extended heredity and the integration of behavior, development, inheritance, and evolution. Problems with Sterelny's proposal to evaluate inheritance systems using his `Hoyle criteria' are discussed and critically evaluated. Additional support for a developmental systems perspective is sought in evolutionary studies of performance and behavior modulation of fitness.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Peter Godfrey-Smith & James Griesemer (2000). Philosophy of Biology, Psychology, and Neuroscience-The Developmental Systems Perspective in the Philosophy of Biology-Development, Culture, and the Units of Inheritance. Philosophy of Science 67 (3).
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. James Griesemer (2000). Development, Culture, and the Units of Inheritance. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):368.
    Developmental systems theory (DST) expands the unit of replication from genes to whole systems of developmental resources, which DST interprets in terms of cycling developmental processes. Expansion seems required by DST's argument against privileging genes in evolutionary and developmental explanations of organic traits. DST and the expanded replicator brook no distinction between biological and cultural evolution. However, by endorsing a single expanded unit of inheritance and leaving the classical molecular notion of gene intact, DST achieves only a nominal reunification of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. James R. Griesemer & Michael J. Wade (2000). Populational Heritability: Extending Punnett Square Concepts to Evolution at the Metapopulation Level. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 15 (1):1-17.
    In a previous study, using experimental metapopulations of the flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum, we investigated phase III of Wright's shifting balance process (Wade and Griesemer 1998). We experimentally modeled migration of varying amounts from demes of high mean fitness into demes of lower mean fitness (as in Wright's characterization of phase III) as well as the reciprocal (the opposite of phase III). We estimated the meta-populational heritability for this level of selection by regression of offspring deme means on the weighted (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. James R. Griesemer, Michael J. Wade, Populational Heritability, Cutting Some Slack, Jason Scott Robert & Foundational Heresies Fastidious (2000). Volume15 No. 1 January2000. Biology and Philosophy 15:795-798.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. James R. Griesemer (1999). Materials for the Study of Evolutionary Transition. Biology and Philosophy 14 (1):127-142.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. James Griesemer (1998). Turning Back to Go Forward. A Review of Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution, the Lamarckian Dimension, by Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb. Biology and Philosophy 13 (1):103-112.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. James R. Griesemer & Elihu M. Gerson (1993). Collaboration in the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Journal of the History of Biology 26 (2):185 - 203.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. James R. Griesemer (1991). Must Scientific Diagrams Be Eliminable? The Case of Path Analysis. Biology and Philosophy 6 (2):155-180.
    Scientists use a variety of modes of representation in their work, but philosophers have studied mainly sentences expressing propositions. I ask whether diagrams are mere conveniences in expressing propositions or whether they are a distinct, ineliminable mode of representation in scientific texts. The case of path analysis, a statistical method for quantitatively assessing the relative degree of causal determination of variation as expressed in a causal path diagram, is discussed. Path analysis presents a worst case for arguments against eliminability since (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. James R. Griesemer (1990). Modeling in the Museum: On the Role of Remnant Models in the Work of Joseph Grinnell. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 5 (1):3-36.
    Accounts of the relation between theories and models in biology concentrate on mathematical models. In this paper I consider the dual role of models as representations of natural systems and as a material basis for theorizing. In order to explicate the dual role, I develop the concept of a remnant model, a material entity made from parts of the natural system(s) under study. I present a case study of an important but neglected naturalist, Joseph Grinnell, to illustrate the extent to (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. James R. Griesemer (1990). Material Models in Biology. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:79 - 93.
    Propositions alone are not constitutive of science. But is the "non-propositional" side of science theoretically superfluous: must philosophy of science consider it in order to adequately account for science? I explore the boundary between the propositional and non-propositional sides of biological theory, drawing on three cases: Grinnell's remnant models of faunas, Wright's path analysis, and Weismannism's role in the generalization of evolutionary theory. I propose a picture of material model-building in biology in which manipulated systems of material objects function as (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. James R. Griesemer (1988). Causal Explanation in Laboratory Ecology: The Case of Competitive Indeterminacy. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:337 - 344.
    This paper characterizes the role of the experimenter in causal explanations of laboratory phenomena. Causal explanation rests on appeals to the experimenter's efficacy as a causal agent. I contrast "demographic" and "genetic" explanations of stochastic outcomes in a set of competition experiments in ecology. The demographic view ascribes causes to the experimenter's agency in setting up the experiment and to events within the experimental set-up. The genetic view ascribes causes to an unrecognized effect of the experimenter's sampling process prior to (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. James R. Griesemer (1988). Genes, Memes and Demes. Biology and Philosophy 3 (2):179-184.
  24. James R. Griesemer & Michael J. Wade (1988). Laboratory Models, Causal Explanation and Group Selection. Biology and Philosophy 3 (1):67-96.
    We develop an account of laboratory models, which have been central to the group selection controversy. We compare arguments for group selection in nature with Darwin's arguments for natural selection to argue that laboratory models provide important grounds for causal claims about selection. Biologists get information about causes and cause-effect relationships in the laboratory because of the special role their own causal agency plays there. They can also get information about patterns of effects and antecedent conditions in nature. But to (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. James Griesemer (1984). Presentations and the Status of Theories. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1984:102 - 114.
    The concept of a presentation of a theory is often introduced in discussions of the "semantic view" of theories to characterize the way in which models for a theory are specified. Presentations are most often thought of as definitions of the kinds of systems represented in the models. It is argued that the concept of a presentation can be widened to permit consideration of the links between epistemologically motivated accounts of theory structure and some metaphysically motivated accounts of the growth (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation