Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T00:43:03.639Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Occam’s Razor in Molecular and Systems Biology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Fridolin Gross
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Occam’s razor refers to the idea that among competing explanations the simplest should be preferred. This principle has been understood and defended in different ways. Some systems biologists argue that traditional molecular biology is misguided because it relies on an unjustified application of Occam’s razor. I analyze which version of the principle is relevant in this context and ask whether the allegation stands up to scrutiny by looking at actual research. I defend the traditional approach by arguing that its use of Occam’s razor is innocuous and by showing that systems biology heavily relies on considerations of simplicity as well.

Type
Biological Sciences
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 86 , Issue 5 , December 2019 , pp. 1134 - 1145
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

*

To contact the author, please write to: Institute for Philosophy, University of Kassel, Nora-Platiel-Strasse 1, 34127 Kassel, Germany; e-mail: fridolin.gross@uni-kassel.de.

1.

The biologist Johnjoe McFadden defends Occam’s razor against people like Westerhoff in the same spirit, by appealing to the ability of simple models to make “sharper predictions.” See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvpWiV3WtLQ.

References

Alon, U. 2007. Introduction to Systems Biology. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Baker, A. 2007. “Occam’s Razor in Science: A Case Study from Biogeography.” Biology and Philosophy 22:193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, W., and Abrahamsen, A. 2010. “Dynamic Mechanistic Explanation: Computational Modeling of Circadian Rhythms as an Exemplar for Cognitive Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 41 (3): 321–33..Google ScholarPubMed
Crick, F. 1988. What Mad Pursuit. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Cushing, J. T. 1998. Philosophical Concepts in Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. 1974. “Explanation and Scientific Understanding.” Journal of Philosophy 71 (1): 5–19..10.2307/2024924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, N. 1961. “Safety, Strength, Simplicity.” Philosophy of Science 61 (2): 150–51..Google Scholar
Goodwin, B. C. 1965. “Oscillatory Behavior in Enzymatic Control Processes.” Advances in Enzyme Regulation 3:425–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gross, F., and Green, S.. 2017. “The Sum of the Parts: Large-Scale Modeling in Systems Biology.” Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 9 (10).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huby, P. M. 1991. “What Did Aristotle Mean by ‘Nature Does Nothing in Vain’?” In Logical Foundations, ed. Mahalingam, I. and Carr, B., 158–66. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kelly, K. T. 2004. “Justification as Truth-Finding Efficiency: How Ockham’s Razor Works.” Minds and Machines 14 (4): 485–505..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1957. The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lara-Gonzalez, P., Westhorpe, F. G., and Taylor, S. S.. 2012. “The Spindle Assembly Checkpoint.” Current Biology 22:R966–R980.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Machamer, P., Darden, L., and Craver, C. F.. 2000. “Thinking about Mechanisms.” Philosophy of Science 67 (1): 1–25..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J. S. 1865. An Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy and of the Principal Philosophical Questions Discussed in his Writings. 2nd ed. London: Longman, Green.Google Scholar
Newton, I. 1999. The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Trans. Cohen, I. Bernard and Whitman, Anne. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1935. Logik der Forschung: Zur Erkenntnistheorie der modernen Naturwissenschaft. Vienna: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. 1963. “On Simple Theories of a Complex World.” Synthese 15 (1): 103–6..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1962. “The Architecture of Complexity.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106 (6): 467–82..Google Scholar
Sober, E. 1981. “The Principle of Parsimony.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 32 (2): 145–56..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E.. 2015. Ockham’s Razors: A User’s Manual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorburn, W. M. 1918. “The Myth of Occam’s Razor.” Mind 27 (107): 345–53..Google Scholar
van Regenmortel, M. H. V. 2004. “Reductionism and Complexity in Molecular Biology.” EMBO Reports 5:1016–20.Google ScholarPubMed
Voit, E. O. 2017. “From a Fascination with Arrow Diagrams to Witnessing a Tipping Point in Biology.” In Philosophy of Systems Biology: Perspectives from Scientists and Philosophers, ed. Green, S., 247–56. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Westerhoff, H. V., Winder, C., Messiha, H., Simeonidis, E., Adamczyk, M., Verma, M., Bruggeman, F. J., and Dunn, W.. 2009. “Systems Biology: The Elements and Principles of Life.” FEBS Letters 583 (24): 3882–90..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed