Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T06:45:36.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diagrams in biology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2013

Laura Perini
Laura Perini*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Pomona College, 551 N. College Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Biologists depend on visual representations, and their use of diagrams has drawn the attention of philosophers, historians, and sociologists interested in understanding how these images are involved in biological reasoning. These studies, however, proceed from identification of diagrams on the basis of their spare visual appearance, and do not draw on a foundational theory of the nature of diagrams as representations. This approach has limited the extent to which we understand how these diagrams are involved in biological reasoning. In this paper, I characterize three different kinds of figures among those previously identified as diagrams. The features that make these figures distinctive as representational types, furthermore, illuminate the ways in which they are involved in biological reasoning.

Type
Articles
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 28 , Special Issue 3: Visualization, Visual Representation and Reasoning , September 2013 , pp. 273 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Abraham, T. 2003. From theory to data: representing neurons in the 1940s. Biology and Philosophy 3, 415–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrahams, J. P., Leslie, A. G., Lutter, R., Walker, J. 1994. Structure at 2.8Å resolution of F1-ATPase from bovine heart mitochondria. Nature 370, 621–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baigrie, B. (ed.) 1996. Picturing Knowledge: Historical and Philosophical Problems Concerning the use of Art in Science. University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, W., Richardson, R. 1992. Emergent phenomena and complex systems. In Emergence or Reduction? Essays on the Prospects of Nonreductive Physicalism, Beckerman, A., Flohr, H. & Kim, J. (eds). Walter de Gruyter Verlag, 257–258.Google Scholar
Boekema, E. J., Berden, J. A., van Heel, M. G. 1986. Structure of mitochondrial F1-ATPase studied by electron microscopy and image processing. Biochimica Biophysica Acta 851, 353–360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cummins, R. 1975. Functional analysis. Journal of Philosophy 72, 741–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, N. 1976. Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Hackett Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R. 1996. Visual models and scientific judgment. In Picturing Knowledge: Historical and Philosophical Problems Concerning the use of Art in Science, Baigrie, B. (ed.). University of Toronto Press, 269–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, S. 1991. Epigenetic landscaping: Waddington's use of cell fate bifurcation diagrams. Biology and Philosophy 6, 135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griesemer, J. 1991. Must scientific diagrams be eliminable? The case of path analysis. Biology and Philosophy 6, 155–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, B. 1996. The didactic and the elegant: some thoughts on scientific and technological illustrations in the middle ages and renaissance. In Picturing Knowledge: Historical and Philosophical Problems Concerning the use of Art in Science, Baigrie, B. (ed.). University of Toronto Press, 3–39.Google Scholar
Larkin, J., Simon, H. 1987. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 11, 65–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopes, D. 1995. Pictorial realism. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 53, 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M. 1988. The externalized retina: selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences. Human Studies 11, 201–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maienschein, J. 1991. From Presentation to Representation in E.B. Wilson's The Cell. Biology and Philosophy 6, 227–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCulloch, W. S., Pitts, W. 1943. A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics 5, 423–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nersessian, N. 1992. How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In Cognitive Models of Science. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 15, Giere, R. N. (ed.). University of Minnesota Press, 3–44.Google Scholar
Perini, L. 2004. Convention, resemblance and isomorphism: understanding scientific visual representations. In Multidisciplinary Approaches to Visual Representations and Interpretations, Grant, M. (ed.). Elsevier, 37–47.Google Scholar
Perini, L. 2005a. Explanation in two dimensions: diagrams and biological models. Biology & Philosophy 20, 257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perini, L. 2005b. The truth in pictures. Philosophy of Science 72, 262–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perini, L. 2010. Scientific Representations and the Semiotics of Pictures. In New Waves in Philosophy of Science, Magnus, P. D. & Busch, J. (eds). Palgrave Macmillan, 131– 154.Google Scholar
Perini, L. 2012. Form and Function: A Semiotic Analysis of Figures in Biology Textbooks. In The Educated Eye: Visual Culture and Pedagogy in the Life Sciences, Anderson, N. & Dietrich, M. (eds). Dartmouth College Press, 235–254.Google Scholar
Purves, W., Orians, G., Heller, H. 1995. Life: The Science of Biology. Sinauer/Freeman.Google Scholar
Ruse, M., Taylor, P. (eds) 1991. Special issue on pictorial representation in biology. Biology & Philosophy 6, 125–294.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. 1996. Are pictures really necessary? The case of Sewall Wright's ‘Adaptive Landscapes’. In Picturing Knowledge: Historical and Philosophical Problems Concerning the use of Art in Science, Baigre, B. (ed.). University of Toronto Press, 303–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P., Blum, A. 1991. Pictorial representation in biology. Biology and Philosophy 6, 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Threadgold, L. T. 1967. The Ultrastructure of the Animal Cell. Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. B. 1896. The Cell in Development and Inheritance. Macmillan.Google Scholar