Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:09:32.756Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conflations in the Causal Account of Information Undermine the Parity Thesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Barton Moffatt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The received view in philosophy of biology is that there is a well-understood, philosophically rigorous account of information—causal information. I argue that this view is mistaken. Causal information is fatally undermined by misinterpretations and conflations between distinct independent accounts of information. As a result, philosophical arguments based on causal information are deeply flawed. I end by briefly considering what a correct application of the relevant accounts of information would look like in the biological context.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 78 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 284 - 302
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 would like to acknowledge my appreciation for the invaluable feedback of Ken Waters, Ronald Giere, Alan Love, Mark Borrello, Chuck Stieg, Susan Hawthorne, Katie Plaisance, Toben Lafrancois, John Bickle, Lynn Holt, Trisha Philips, Robert Thompson, and Grieg Mulberry. In addition, I would like to especially thank Paul Griffiths for his comments on an earlier draft of this article.

References

Bergstrom, Carl T., and Rosvall, Martin. 2009. “The Transmission Sense of Information.” Biology and Philosophy Online First, doi:10.1007/s10539-009-9180-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downes, Stephen. 2006. “Biological Information.” In Philosophy of Science: An Encyclopedia, ed. Pfeiffer, J. and Sarkar, S., 64–68. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dretske, Fred. 1981. Knowledge and the Flow of Information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 2000a. “Information, Arbitrariness, and Selection: Comments on Maynard Smith.” Philosophy of Science 67:202–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 2000b. “On the Theoretical Role of ‘Genetic Coding.’” Philosophy of Science 67:26–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 2010. “Senders, Receivers, and Genetic Information: Comments on Bergstrom and Rosvall.” Biology and Philosophy Online First, doi:10.1007/s10539-010-9206-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, Peter, and Sterelny, Kim. 2007. “Biological Information.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information-biological/.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul. 2001. “Genetic Information: A Metaphor in Search of a Theory.” Philosophy of Science 68:394–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, Paul, and Gray, Russell. 1994. “Developmental Systems and Evolutionary Explanation.” Journal of Philosophy 91 (6): 277–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E., and Knight, Rob D.. 1998. “What Is the Developmentalist Challenge?” Philosophy of Science 65:253–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Timothy. 1987. “The Persistence of Dichotomies in the Study of Behavioral Development.” Developmental Review 7:149–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, John. 2000a. “The Concept of Information in Biology.” Philosophy of Science 67:177–94.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, John. 2000b. “Reply to Commentaries.” Philosophy of Science 67:214–18.Google Scholar
Sarkar, Sahotra. 1996a. “Biological Information: A Skeptical Look at Some Central Dogmas of Molecular Biology.” In The Philosophy and History of Molecular Biology: New Perspectives, ed. Sarkar, Sahotra, 187–231. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkar, Sahotra. 1996b. “Decoding ‘Coding’-Information and DNA.” BioScience 46:857–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, Claude E. 1948. “A Mathematical Theory of Communication.” Bell System Technical Journal 27:379–423, 623–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, Claude E., and Weaver, Warren. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Sterelny, Kim, and Griffiths, Paul. 1999. Sex and Death: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winnie, John A. 2000. “Information and Structure in Molecular Biology: Comments on Maynard Smith.” Philosophy of Science 67:517–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar