Is the history of life a series of accidents or a drama scripted by selfish genes? Is there an “essential” human nature, determined at birth or in a distant evolutionary past? What should we conserve—species, ecosystems, or something else? -/- Informed answers to questions like these, critical to our understanding of ourselves and the world around us, require both a knowledge of biology and a philosophical framework within which to make sense of its findings. In this accessible introduction to philosophy (...) of biology, Kim Sterelny and Paul E. Griffiths present both the science and the philosophical context necessary for a critical understanding of the most exciting debates shaping biology today. The authors, both of whom have published extensively in this field, describe the range of competing views—including their own—on these fascinating topics. -/- With its clear explanations of both biological and philosophical concepts, Sex and Death will appeal not only to undergraduates, but also to the many general readers eager to think critically about the science of life. (shrink)

Thomas S. Kuhn's classic book is now available with a new index.

Many philosophers have asserted that evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable. In this paper I refute these assertions by detailing some falsifiable predictions of the theory and the evidence used to test them. I then analyze both these predictions and evidence cited to support assertions of unfalsifiability in order to show both what type of predictions are possible and why it has been so difficult to spot them. The conclusion is that the apparent logical peculiarity of evolutionary theory is not a property (...) of evolutionary theory; it is a property of our human-sized perspective on evolutionary theory. (shrink)

Laudan's thesis that conceptual problem solving is at least as important as empirical problem solving in scientific research is given support by a study of the relation between the chromosome theory and the Mendelian research program. It will be shown that there existed a conceptual tension between the chromosome theory and the Mendelian program. This tension was to be resolved by changing the constraints of the Mendelian program. The relation between the chromosome theory and the Mendelian program is shown to (...) be a good illustration of the influence of science itself on the rational standards governing scientific development. (shrink)

In a reply to Marga Vicedo the philosophical inconsistency of Morgan is emphasized. It is argued that even if a strict classification of scientists according to their philosophical position is not possible, their science may still be influenced by their philosophical ideas. Finally it is suggested that philosophical ideas influence science less by a direct effect on the scientists than indirectly through science policy and administration.

It is evident how much Olby and Provine have contributed to a better understanding of the emergence of genetics. It is equally evident, I believe, how many obscure issues still remain to be elucidated. Indeed, their volumes have raised as many new questions as they have answered old ones. In particular, the role of constructive as well as retarding contemporary concepts in the development of new generalizations still requires far more analysis. The somewhat independent trends of various national schools and (...) the influence of neighboring fields (e.g. statistics, animal husbandry, systematics) are other areas deserving further study. All these influences contributed, one way or another, to the growth and maturation of genetics.37. (shrink)

Leplin attempts to reinstate the common sense idea that theoretical knowledge is achievable, indeed that its achievement is part of the means to progress in empirical knowledge. He sketches the genesis of the skeptical position, then introduces his argument for Minimalist Scientific Realism -- the requirement that novel predicitons be explained, and the claim that only realism about scientific theories can explain the importance of novel prediction.

Barbara McClintock won the Nobel Prize in 1983 for her discovery of mobile genetic elements. Her Nobel work began in 1944, and by 1950 McClintock began presenting her work on "controlling elements." McClintock performed her studies through the use of controlled breeding experiments with known mutant stocks, and read the action of controlling elements (transposons) in visible patterns of pigment and starch distribution. She taught close colleagues to "read" the patterns in her maize kernels, "seeing" pigment and starch genes turning (...) on and off. McClintock illustrated her talks and papers on controlling elements or transposons with photographs of the spotted and streaked maize kernels which were both her evidence and the key to her explanations. Transposon action could be read in the patterns by the initiated, but those without step by step instruction by McClintock or experience in maize often found her presentations confusing. The photographs she displayed became both McClintock's means of communication, and a barrier to successful presentation of her results. The photographs also had a second and more subtle effect. As images of patterns arrived at through growth and development of the kernel, they highlight what McClintock believed to be the developmental consequences of transposition, which in McClintock's view was her central contribution, over the mechanism of transposition, for which she was eventually recognized by others. Scientific activities are extremely visual, both at the sites of investigation and in communication through drawings, photographs, and movies. Those visual messages deserve greater scrutiny by historians of science. (shrink)

Throughout the 1930s two of Germany’s most senior geneticists were caught up in controversy as they tried to enter the distinctly American culture of Drosophila genetics. When Richard Goldschmidt and Victor Jollos were forced by the Nazis to leave Germany in 1936 and 1933, respectively, this type of conflict intensified. The experiences of Goldschmidt and Jollos as émigré scientists are interpreted in terms of a conflict of scientific styles of thought. Their Americanization, I claim, involved the modification of their scientific (...) styles and consequently the ways in which they conceived of and presented their scientific work. (shrink)

This paper analyzes the generation and function of hitherto ignored or misrepresented interfield theories , theories which bridge two fields of science. Interfield theories are likely to be generated when two fields share an interest in explaining different aspects of the same phenomenon and when background knowledge already exists relating the two fields. The interfield theory functions to provide a solution to a characteristic type of theoretical problem: how are the relations between fields to be explained? In solving this problem (...) the interfield theory may provide answers to questions which arise in one field but cannot be answered within it alone, may focus attention on domain items not previously considered important, and may predict new domain items for one or both fields. Implications of this analysis for the problems of reduction and the unity and progress of science are mentioned. (shrink)

Der orthodoxen Interpretation zufolge wird die Genetik als eine Disziplin dargestellt, deren Geschichte (von ihrem vermuteten Ursprung mit dem Werk Mendels an über die Werke der sogenannten «Wiederentdecker» de Vries, Correns und Tschermak und des englischen Mendelianers Bateson bis hin zur Arbeit Morgans) kontinuierlich, kumulativ und linear verlaufen sei. Im ersten Teil des Buches wird hingegen die Diskontinuität dieses Prozesses betont. Innerhalb der strukturalistischen Auffassung wissenschaftlicher Theorien wird die klassische Genetik im zweiten Teil in einer Weise rekonstruiert und formal analysiert, (...) die den im ersten Teil erarbeiteten Ergebnissen gerecht wird. (shrink)

This book discusses the history of biology and science. Focusing on heredity, which Jacobs considers the fundamental feature of living things, he shows how, since the sixteenth century, the scientific understanding of inherited traits has moved not in a linear, progressive way, from error to truth, but instead through a series of frameworks. He reveals how these successive interpretive approaches--focusing on visible structures, internal structures such as cells, evolution, genes, and DNA and other molecules- each have their own power but (...) also limitations. Fundamentally challenging how the history of biology is told, much as Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" did for the history of science as a whole. (shrink)

A revised and enlarged version of Biologen unter Hitler, translated by Thomas Dunlap.

This innovative book focuses on the development of the gene theory as a case study in scientific creativity.

I argue that seven methodological principles that have been regarded as paradigmatic of good research in the physical sciences, simplicity, generality, idealization, conservatism, experimentation, mathematics, and mechanism, often do not produce good results in biology. It is possible to do good biological research without strictly adhering to these principles, and attempts to apply these principles can produce poor results. Thus, biology's methodology does conform to the standard views of methodology in the physical sciences, because its methodology is successful, even though (...) it is unlike the methodology of the physical sciences, and biology is an autonomous science in that it should not be subjugated to the methodological rule of the physical sciences. (shrink)