Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T05:28:49.638Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - How Are Biology Concepts Used and Transformed?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 September 2020

By
Ingo Brigandt
Edited by
Kostas Kampourakis  and
Tobias Uller
Kostas Kampourakis
Affiliation:
Université de Genève
Tobias Uller
Affiliation:
Lunds Universitet, Sweden
Get access

Summary

Scientific knowledge (and its transformation) is often presented in terms of models or overarching theories (Chapter 4). This chapter, in contrast, focuses on concepts as units and organizers of scientific knowledge. Concepts, on the one hand, are more fine-grained units in that a scientific theory contains many individual concepts. On the other hand – and this makes a look at concepts in biology particularly interesting – a concept can be used across several theories, and it can persist even when a theory has been discarded. The concept of a species continues to be used well after pre-Darwinian theories about species were abandoned, and this concept is used across all of biology, in such different theoretical contexts as vertebrate development and microbial ecology. The gene concept is likewise used in very different fields; it has survived despite the flaws of the original Mendelian theory of inheritance and a move toward molecular accounts.

Type
Chapter
Information
Philosophy of Science for Biologists , pp. 79 - 101
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

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.)

References

Ankeny, R. A. & Leonelli, S. (2016). Repertoires: A Post-Kuhnian Perspective on Scientific Change and Collaborative Research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 60: 18–28.Google Scholar
Attenborough, R. (2015). What Are Species and Why Does It Matter? Anopheline Taxonomy and the Transmission of Malaria. In Behie, A. M. & Oxenham, M. F. (eds.), Taxonomic Tapestries: The Threads of Evolutionary, Band Conservation Research, pp. 129–155. Canberra: ANU Press.Google Scholar
Beadle, G. W. & Tatum, E. (1941). Genetic Control of Biological Reactions in Neurospora. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 27(1): 499–506.Google Scholar
Brigandt, I. (2003). Homology in Comparative, Molecular, and Evolutionary Developmental Biology: The Radiation of a Concept. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution 299(1): 9–17.Google Scholar
Brigandt, I. (2010). The Epistemic Goal of a Concept: Accounting for the Rationality of Semantic Change and Variation. Synthese 177(1): 19–40.Google Scholar
Brigandt, I. (2013). Explanation in Biology: Reduction, Pluralism, and Explanatory Aims. Science & Education 22(1): 69–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brigandt, I. (2015). From Developmental Constraint to Evolvability: How Concepts Figure in Explanation and Disciplinary Identity. In Love, A. C. (ed.), Conceptual Change in Biology: Scientific and Philosophical Perspectives on Evolution and Development, pp. 305–325. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Brigandt, I. & Love, A. C. (2012). Conceptualizing Evolutionary Novelty: Moving beyond Definitional Debates. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution 318(6): 417–427.Google Scholar
Bzovy, J. (2017). Species Pluralism: Conceptual, Ontological, and Practical Dimensions. Dissertation, Western University. http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/4309Google Scholar
Carlson, E. A. (1966). The Gene: A Critical History. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar
Conix, S. (2018). Radical Pluralism, Classificatory Norms and the Legitimacy of Species Classifications. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 73: 27–34.Google Scholar
Depew, D. (this volume). How Is Biology Affected by Conceptual Frameworks? In Kampourakis, K. & Uller, T. (eds.), Philosophy of Science for Biologists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, M. (1992). Eliminative Pluralism. Philosophy of Science 59(4): 671–690.Google Scholar
Falk, R. (1986). What Is a Gene? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 17(2): 133–173.Google Scholar
Feest, U. & Steinle, F. (eds.) (2012). Scientific Concepts and Investigative Practice. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Frankham, R., Ballou, J. D., Dudash, M. R., Eldridge, M. D. B., Fenster, C. B., Lacy, R. C., et al. (2012). Implications of Different Species Concepts for Conserving Biodiversity. Biological Conservation 153: 25–31.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, M. T. (1987). Species Concepts, Individuality, and Objectivity. Biology and Philosophy 2(2): 127–143.Google Scholar
Griffiths, P. & Stotz, K. (2013). Genetics and Philosophy: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, B. K. & Kerney, R. (2012). Levels of Biological Organization and the Origin of Novelty. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution 318(6): 428–437.Google Scholar
Hallgrímsson, B., Jamniczky, H. A., Young, N. M., Rolian, C., Schmidt-Ott, U., & Marcucio, R. S. (2012). The Generation of Variation and the Developmental Basis for Evolutionary Novelty. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution 318: 501–517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hendrikse, J. L., Parsons, T. E., & Hallgrímsson, B. (2007). Evolvability as the Proper Focus of Evolutionary Developmental Biology. Evolution & Development 9(4): 393–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johanson, Z., Joss, J., Boisvert, C. A., Ericsson, R., Sutija, M., & Ahlberg, P. E. (2007). Fish Fingers: Digit Homologues in Sarcopterygian Fish Fins. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution 308B(6): 757–768.Google Scholar
Kampourakis, K. (2017). Making Sense of Genes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kampourakis, K. & Stern, F. (2018). Reconsidering the Meaning of Concepts in Biology: Why Distinctions Are so Important. BioEssays 40: 1800148.Google Scholar
Keller, E. F. (2000). The Century of the Gene. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kindi, V. (2012). Concept as Vessel and Concept as Use. In Feest, U. & Steinle, F. (eds.), Scientific Concepts and Investigative Practice, pp. 23–46. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1984). Species. Philosophy of Science 51(2): 308–333.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lidgard, S. & Love, A. C. (2018). Rethinking Living Fossils. BioScience 68(10): 760–770.Google Scholar
Love, A. C. (2013a). Interdisciplinary Lessons for the Teaching of Biology from the Practice of Evo-Devo. Science & Education 22(2): 255–278.Google Scholar
Love, A. C. (2013b). Teaching Evolutionary Developmental Biology: Concepts, Controversies, and Consequences. In Kampourakis, K. (ed.), The Philosophy of Biology: A Companion for Educators, pp. 323–341. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Ludwig, D. (2016). Ontological Choices and the Value-Free Ideal. Erkenntnis 81(6): 1253–1272.Google Scholar
Mayden, R. L. (1997). A Hierarchy of Species Concepts: The Denoument in the Saga of the Species Problem. In Claridge, M. F., Dawah, H. A., & Wilson, M. R. (eds.), Species: The Units of Biodiversity, pp. 381–424. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Mayden, R. L. (2002). On Biological Species, Species Concepts and Individuation in the Natural World. Fish and Fisheries 3(3): 171–196.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1987). The Ontological Status of Species: Scientific Progress and Philosophical Terminology. Biology and Philosophy 2: 145–166.Google Scholar
Morgan, T. H., Sturtevant, A. H., Muller, H. J., & Bridges, C. B. (1915). The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Moss, L. (2003). What Genes Can’t Do. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Müller, G. B. & Wagner, G. P. (1991). Novelty in Evolution: Restructuring the Concept. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 22(1): 229–256.Google Scholar
Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating Scientific Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
NGSS Lead States (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Portin, P. (1993). The Concept of the Gene: Short History and Present Status. Quarterly Review of Biology 68(2): 173–223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potochnik, A. (2017). Idealization and the Aims of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rheinberger, H.-J. & Müller-Wille, S. (2017). The Gene: From Genetics to Postgenomics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Scharpf, C. (2000). Politics, Science, and the Fate of the Alabama Sturgeon. American Currents 26(3): 6–14.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. (1961). Principles of Animal Taxonomy. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stotz, K. & Griffiths, P. E. (2004). Genes: Philosophical Analyses Put to the Test. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 26: 5–28.Google Scholar
Sturtevant, A. H. (1915). The Behavior of the Chromosomes as Studied through Linkage. Zeitschrift für induktive Abstammungs- und Vererbungslehre 13(1): 234–287.Google Scholar
Waters, C. K. (2000). Molecules Made Biological. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 4(214): 539–564.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (2005). Philosophy of Experimental Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilkins, J. S. (2018). Species: The Evolution of the Idea. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×