Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T20:34:37.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining Evolutionary Innovations and Novelties: Criteria of Explanatory Adequacy and Epistemological Prerequisites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Alan C. Love
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is a common complaint that antireductionist arguments are primarily negative. Here I describe an alternative nonreductionist epistemology based on considerations taken from multidisciplinary research in biology. The core of this framework consists in seeing investigation as coordinated around sets of problems (problem agendas) that have associated criteria of explanatory adequacy. These ideas are developed in a case study, the explanation of evolutionary innovations and novelties, which demonstrates the applicability and fruitfulness of this nonreductionist epistemological perspective. This account also bears on questions of conceptual change and theory structure in philosophy of science.

Type
Evolutionary Innovation and Novelties
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 75 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2006 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers. Edited by Cristina Bicchieri and Jason Alexander , December 2008 , pp. 874 - 886
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

‡

Mark Borrello, Ric Otte, Ken Waters, and Marcel Weber provided useful criticism and suggestions on earlier versions of this paper. I am indebted to many individuals who commented on portions of my doctoral dissertation, from which this paper is developed. Thanks also to questions and comments from the various participants in the session at PSA 2006 in Vancouver and to Jonathan Kaplan for organizing the symposium.

References

Bechtel, W. (1993), “Integrating Sciences by Creating New Disciplines: The Case of Cell Biology”, Integrating Sciences by Creating New Disciplines: The Case of Cell Biology 8:277–299.Google Scholar
Belnap, N. D., and Steel, T. B. (1976), The Logic of Questions and Answers. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Burian, R. M. (1993), “Unification and Coherence as Methodological Objectives in the Biological Sciences”, Unification and Coherence as Methodological Objectives in the Biological Sciences 8:301–318.Google Scholar
Cohn, M. (2006), “Making the Paper”, Making the Paper 442 (7106): xi.Google Scholar
Cooper, S., Hanmer, D., and Cerbin, B. (2006), “Problem-Solving Modules in Large Introductory Biology Lectures”, Problem-Solving Modules in Large Introductory Biology Lectures 68:524–529.Google Scholar
Darden, L., and Maull, N. (1977), “Interfield Theories”, Interfield Theories 44:43–64.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. ([1859] 1964), On the Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobzhansky, T. (1951), Genetics and the Origins of Species. 3rd rev. ed. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ganfornina, M. D., and Sánchez, D. (1999), “Generation of Evolutionary Novelty by Functional Shift”, Generation of Evolutionary Novelty by Functional Shift 21:432–439.Google ScholarPubMed
Gibson, G. (2005), “The Synthesis and Evolution of a Supermodel”, The Synthesis and Evolution of a Supermodel 307:1890–1891.Google ScholarPubMed
Goldenfeld, N., and Woese, C. R. (2007), “Biology's Next Revolution”, Biology's Next Revolution 445: 369.Google ScholarPubMed
Grantham, T. (2004), “Conceptualizing the (Dis)unity of Science”, Conceptualizing the (Dis)unity of Science 71:133–155.Google Scholar
Hall, B. K. (1999), Evolutionary Developmental Biology. 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, B. (1999), “Interdisciplinarity: For What Purpose?” Policy Sciences 32:339–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1976), “Informal Aspects of Theory Reduction”, in Cohen, R. S. and Michalos, A. (eds.), PSA 1974: Proceedings of the 1974 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Boston: D. Reidel, 653–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirschner, M. W., and Gerhart, J. C. (2005), The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1977), Progress and Its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Love, A. C. (2003), “Evolutionary Morphology, Innovation, and the Synthesis of Evolutionary and Developmental Biology”, Evolutionary Morphology, Innovation, and the Synthesis of Evolutionary and Developmental Biology 18:309–345.Google Scholar
Love, A. C. (2006a), “Taking Development Seriously: Who, What, Where, Why, When, How?” Biology and Philosophy 21:575–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, A. C. (2006b), “Evolutionary Morphology and Evo-devo: Hierarchy and Novelty”, Evolutionary Morphology and Evo-devo: Hierarchy and Novelty 124:317–333.Google Scholar
Love, A. C., and Raff, R. A. (2006), “Larval Ectoderm, Organizational Homology, and the Origins of Evolutionary Novelty”, Larval Ectoderm, Organizational Homology, and the Origins of Evolutionary Novelty 306B:18–34.Google Scholar
Mitchell, S. D. (2003), Biological Complexity and Integrative Pluralism. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, G. B., and Newman, S. A., eds. (2003), Origination of Organismal Form: Beyond the Gene in Developmental and Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, G. B., and Wagner, G. P. (2003), “Innovation”, in Hall, B. K. and Olsson, W. M. (eds.), Keywords and Concepts in Evolutionary Developmental Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 218–227.Google Scholar
Nickles, T. (1976), “Theory Generalization, Problem Reduction and the Unity of Science”, in Cohen, R. S. and Michalos, A. (eds.), PSA 1974: Proceedings of the 1974 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Boston: D. Reidel, 33–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickles, T. (1981), “What Is a Problem That We May Solve It?” Synthese 47:85–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, E. J., and Westlund, D. (2006), “On the Role of the Research Agenda in Epistemic Change”, On the Role of the Research Agenda in Epistemic Change 65:165–183.Google Scholar
Ridley, M. (2004), Evolution. 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science.Google Scholar
Robert, J. S. (2004), Embryology, Epigenesis, and Evolution: Taking Development Seriously. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1997), “Reductionism Redux: Computing the Embryo”, Reductionism Redux: Computing the Embryo 12:445–470.Google Scholar
Sarkar, S. (1998), Genetics and Reductionism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapere, D. (1977), “Scientific Theories and Their Domains”, in Suppe, F. (ed.), The Structure of Scientific Theories. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 518–565.Google Scholar
Stadler, B. M. R., Stadler, P. F., Wagner, G. P., and Fontana, W. (2001), “The Topology of the Possible: Formal Spaces Underlying Patterns of Evolutionary Change”, The Topology of the Possible: Formal Spaces Underlying Patterns of Evolutionary Change 213:241–274.Google ScholarPubMed
Wagner, G. P., ed. (2001), The Character Concept in Evolutionary Biology. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, G. P., Chiu, C.-H., and Laubichler, M. (2000), “Developmental Evolution as a Mechanistic Science: The Inference from Developmental Mechanisms to Evolutionary Processes”, Developmental Evolution as a Mechanistic Science: The Inference from Developmental Mechanisms to Evolutionary Processes 40:819–831.Google Scholar
Wilkins, A. S. (2002), The Evolution of Developmental Pathways. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1976), “Reductive Explanation: A Functional Account”, in Cohen, R. S. and Michalos, A. (eds.), PSA 1974: Proceedings of the 1974 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Boston: D. Reidel, 671–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1980), “Reductionistic Research Strategies and Their Biases in the Units of Selection Controversy”, in Nickles, T. (ed.), Scientific Discovery: Case Studies. Boston: D. Reidel, 213–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, G. A. (1999), “Evolutionary Dissociations between Homologous Genes and Homologous Structures”, in Bock, G. R. and Cardew, G. (eds.), Homology. Chichester: Wiley, 189–206.Google Scholar