Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T17:07:11.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reductionism in a Historical Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Alex Rosenberg
Alex Rosenberg*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy Duke University
*
†Send requests for reprints to the author, Dept. of Philosophy, P.O. Box 90743. Duke University, Durham. NC 27708; email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Reductionism is a metaphysical thesis, a claim about explanations, and a research program. The metaphysical thesis reductionists advance (and antireductionists accept) is that all facts, including all biological facts, are fixed by the physical and chemical facts; there are no non-physical events, states, or processes, and so biological events, states and processes are “nothing but” physical ones. The research program can be framed as a methodological prescription which follows from the claim about explanations. Antireductionism does not dispute reductionism's metaphysical claim, but rejects the explanatory claim and so the methodological moral. To a first approximation what reductionists and anti-reductionists disagree about is whether explanations in functional biology can be or need to be explained or completed or perhaps replaced by explanations in terms of molecular biology. And this disagreement over the adequacy of explanations in functional biology drives a significant methodological disagreement with consequence for the research program of biology.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , June 2001 , pp. 135 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 by 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.)

References

Brandon, Robert (1990), Adaptation and Environment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0198247044.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, Richard (1982), The Extended Phenotype. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Dray, William (1957), Law and Explanation in History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul (1964), “Reduction, Empiricism and Laws”, in Herbert Feigl and Grover Maxwell, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume 3. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry (1975), The Language of Thought. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay, and Lewontin, Richard (1979), “The Spandrels of St. Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B205: 581–598.Google Scholar
Hull, David (1974), The Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hull, David (1989) Science As a Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hull, David and Ruse, Michael (1998), The Philosophy of Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shaffner, Kenneth (1967), “Approaches to Reductionism”, Philosophy of Science 34: 137–147.10.1086/288137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keys, Carroll, et al. (1999), “Recruitment of a Hedgehog Regulatory Circuit in Butterfly Eyespot Evolution”, Science 283: 532–534.10.1126/science.283.5401.532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1984), “1953 and All That: A Tale of Two Sciences”, Philosophical Review 93: 335–373.10.2307/2184541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1993), The Advancement of Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1999), “The Hegemony of Molecular Biology”, Biology and Philosophy 14: 196–210.10.1023/A:1006686417669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip and Sterelny, Kim (1998), “The Return of the Gene”, reprinted in Hull and Ruse 1998; page references are to the reprint. Originally appeared in Journal of Philosophy 85(1988): 339–361.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas (1961), Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lange, Mark (1995), “Are There Natural Laws Concerning Particular Species”, Journal of Philosophy 112: 430–451.10.2307/2940819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, Ernst (1981), The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Murray, J. D. (1981), “A Prepattern Formation Mechanism for Animal Coat Markings”, Journal of Theoretical Biology 88: 161–199.10.1016/0022-5193(81)90334-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, J. D. (1989), Mathematical Biology. Berlin: Springer Verlag.10.1007/978-3-662-08539-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Ernest (1961), The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.10.1119/1.1937571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nijhout, F. (1994), “Genes on the Wing”, Science 265: 44–45.10.1126/science.7912450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Alexander (1985), The Structure of Biological Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139171724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Alexander (2001), “How is Biological Explanation Possible?” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, forthcoming.10.1093/bjps/52.4.735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott (1985), The Nature of Selection. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott (1993), The Philosophy of Biology. Boulder. CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott and Wilson, David S. (1998), Unto Others. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Winter, A. E. (1996), “Autocatalysis and the Generation of Self-Replicating Systems”, Chemica Scandinavica 50: 469–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Larry (1976), Teleological Explanation. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar