Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-16T21:38:59.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constant Factors and Hedgeless Hedges: On Heuristics and Biases in Biological Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Jason Scott Robert
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How does a complex organism develop from a relatively simple, homogeneous mass? The usual answer is: through the (context-dependent) execution of species-specific genetic instructions specifying the development of that organism. Commentators are sometimes skeptical of this usual answer, but of course not all commentators, and not always for the same reasons. Here I attempt to lay bare the logical structure of the usual answer through an extended analysis of the heuristics and methodological principles at play in the exploration and explanation of development—and also to show a critical ambiguity that renders the usual answer suspect.

Type
Genes, Development, and Evolution
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 70 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2002 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers , December 2003 , pp. 975 - 988
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

‡

I am grateful to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and the CIHR Institute of Genetics, for financial support of this research. I would also like to thank Richmond Campbell, Gillian Gass, Sahotra Sarkar, and members of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Calgary for helpful critical comments on earlier versions of this article. The themes touched on here are explored in more detail in my book, Embryology, Epigenesis, and Evolution: Taking Development Seriously, forthcoming from Cambridge University Press; a longer version of this article will appear as Chapter 1.

References

Gannett, Lisa (1999), “What's in a Cause? The Pragmatic Dimensions of Genetic Explanations”, What's in a Cause? The Pragmatic Dimensions of Genetic Explanations 14:349–374.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, Gerd, Todd, P. M., and ABC Research Group (1999), Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay, and Lewontin, Richard C. (1979), “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme”, The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme 205:581–598.Google Scholar
Gray, Russell (1992), “Death of the Gene: Developmental Systems Strikes Back”, in Griffiths, Paul E. (ed.), Trees of Life: Essays in the Philosophy of Biology. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 165–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E., and Knight, Robin D. (1998), “What Is the Developmentalist Challenge?” Philosophy of Science 65:253–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamer, Dean, and Copeland, Peter (1998), Living With Our Genes: The Groundbreaking Book About the Science of Personality, Behavior, and Genetic Destiny. New York: Anchor/Doubleday.Google Scholar
Hamer, Dean (2002), “Rethinking Behavior Genetics”, Rethinking Behavior Genetics 298, 71–72.Google ScholarPubMed
Kitcher, Philip (2001), “Battling the Undead: How (and How Not) to Resist Genetic Determinism”, in Singh, R. S., Krimbas, C. B., Paul, D. B. and Beatty, J. (eds.), Thinking About Evolution: Historical, Philosophical, and Political Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 396–414.Google Scholar
Lewontin, Richard C. (1974), “The Analysis of Variance and the Analysis of Causes”, The Analysis of Variance and the Analysis of Causes 26:400–411.Google ScholarPubMed
Lloyd, Elisabeth A. (1999), “Evolutionary Psychology: The Burden of Proof”, Evolutionary Psychology: The Burden of Proof 14:211–233.Google Scholar
Mahner, Martin, and Bunge, Mario (1997), Foundations of Biophilosophy. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCain, Roger A. (1980), “Critical Reflections on Sociobiology”, Critical Reflections on Sociobiology 38:123–139.Google Scholar
Neumann-Held, Eva M. (1999), “The Gene is Dead—Long Live the Gene! Conceptualizing Genes the Constructionist Way”, in Koslowski, Peter (ed.), Sociobiology and Bioeconomics: The Theory of Evolution in Biological and Economic Theory. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 105–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, Jason Scott (2003), “Developmental Systems and Animal Behaviour” (review essay of Evolution's Eye: A Systems View of the Biology-Culture Divide by Susan Oyama), Biology & Philosophy 18:477–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, Jason Scott (2001a), “Interpreting the Homeobox: Metaphors of Gene Action and Activation in Development and Evolution”, Interpreting the Homeobox: Metaphors of Gene Action and Activation in Development and Evolution 3:287–295.Google Scholar
Robert, Jason Scott (2001b), “Genomes, Hormones and Health” (review essay of Generations at Risk: Reproductive Health and the Environment by Ted Schettler, Gina Solomon, Maria Valenti, and Annette Huddle; Hormonal Chaos: The Scientific and Social Origins of the Environmental Endocrine Hypothesis by Sheldon Krimsky; and The Elusive Embryo: How Women and Men Approach New Reproductive Technologies by Gay Becker), Literary Review of Canada 9.4, 18–21.Google Scholar
Robert, Jason Scott (2000a), “Schizophrenia Epigenesis?” Theoretical Medicine & Bioethics 21:191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, Jason Scott (2000b), “Fastidious, Foundational Heresies” (review essay of Foundations of Biophilosophy by Martin Mahner and Mario Bunge), Biology & Philosophy 15:133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Alex (1997), “Reductionism Redux: Computing the Embryo” Biology & Philosophy 12:445–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkar, Sahotra (1998), Genetics and Reductionism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, Kenneth F. (1998), “Genes, Behavior, and Developmental Emergentism: One Process, Indivisible?” Philosophy of Science 65:209–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Kelly C. (1992), “The New Problem of Genetics: A Response to Gifford”, The New Problem of Genetics: A Response to Gifford 7:431–452.Google Scholar
Smith, Kathleen K., and Schneider, Richard A. (1998), “Have Gene Knockouts Caused Evolutionary Reversals in the Mammalian First Arch?” BioEssays 20:245–255.3.0.CO;2-Q>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sober, Elliott (2000), “Appendix I: The Meaning of Genetic Causation”, in Buchanan, A., Brock, D. W., Daniels, N. and Wikler, D., From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 347–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterelny, Kim, and Griffiths, Paul E. (1999), Sex and Death: An Introduction to Philosophy of Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterelny, Kim, and Kitcher, Philip (1988), “The Return of the Gene”, The Return of the Gene 85:339–361.Google Scholar
Wahlsten, Douglas (1990), “Insensitivity of the Analysis of Variance to Heredity-Environment Interaction”, Insensitivity of the Analysis of Variance to Heredity-Environment Interaction 13:109–161.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. O. (1975), Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, William C. (1987), “False Models as Means to Truer Theories”, in Nitecki, M. H. and Hoffman, A. (eds.), Neutral Models in Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 23–55.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, William C. (1986), “Heuristics and the Study of Human Behavior”, in Fiske, D. W. and Shweder, R. A. (eds.), Metatheory in Social Science: Pluralisms and Subjectivities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 293–314.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, William C. (1980), “Reductionistic Research Strategies and Their Biases in the Units of Selection Controversy”, Nickles, T. (ed.), Scientific Discovery, Vol. 2: Case Studies. Dordrecht: Reidel, 213–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodger, J. H. (1952), Biology and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar