Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:07:54.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Simple Systems and Phylogenetic Diversity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

William C. Wimsatt
William C. Wimsatt*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The simple systems methodology is a powerful reductionistic research strategy. It has problems as implemented in developmental genetics because the organisms studied are few and unrepresentative. Stronger inferences require independent arguments that key traits are widely distributed phylogenetically. Evolutionary and developmental mechanisms of generative entrenchment and self-organization provide possible support, and are also necessary components of a developmental systems approach.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 65 , Issue 2 , June 1998 , pp. 267 - 275
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1998

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

†

Send requests for reprints to the author, Department of Philosophy, 1050 E. 59th Street, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637; e-mail: [email protected].

‡

Thanks to George von Dassow, Ed Munro, Evelyn Keller, and the Modularity in Development group at Friday Harbor, whose work inspired Section 3 and informed the rest, to Ken Schaffner and Scott Gilbert for useful additional conversations, and to Philip Kitcher for elegant and economical editorial suggestions.

References

Arthur, Wallace (1997), The Origin of Animal Body Plans. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, William and Richardson, Robert (1992), Discovering Complexity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bolker, Jessica (1995), “Model Systems in Developmental Biology”, BioEssays 17(5): 451–455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolker, Jessica and Raff, Rudolph (1997), “Development Commentary: Beyond Worms, Flies, and Mice: It's time to widen the scope of developmental biology”, Journal of NIH Research 9(June): 35–39.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Scott (1992), “Cells in search of community: Critiques of Weismannism and selectable units in ontogeny”, Biology and Philosophy 7: 473–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, Scott, Opitz, J., and Raff, Rudolph (1996), “Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology”, Developmental Biology 173: 357–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, McClintock, Martha K., and Wimsatt, William C. (1998), “Solving Psychological Problems in Four Dimensions: Heuristics for the Social and Biological Sciences”, under review.Google Scholar
Greene, Eric (1989), “A Diet-Induced Developmental Polymorphism in a Caterpillar”, Science 243: 643–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffman, Stuart A. (1993), The Origins of Order. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lerner, I. Michael (1954), Genetic Homeostasis. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Morowitz, Harold J. (1992), The Origins of Cellular Life. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Newman, Stuart (1994), “Generic Physical Mechanisms of Tissue Morphogenesis: a common basis for development and evolution”, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 7: 467–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raff, Rudolph (1996), The Shape of Life: Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, Nicolas (1987), “A New Model of Developmental Constraints as Applied to the Drosophila System”, Journal of Theoretical Biology 127 (3), 271–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schank, Jeffrey C. and Wimsatt, William C. (1988), “Generative Entrenchment and Evolution”, in Fine, Arthur A. and Machamer, Peter K. (eds.), PSA-1986, vol. 2. East Lansing, MI: The Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 33–60.Google Scholar
Schank, Jeffrey C. and Wimsatt, William C. (1998), Evolvability: Adaptation, Construction, and Modularity, [in Singh, Krimbas, Beatty, and Paul (eds.), Lewontin festschrift, v. 2]. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Waddington, Conrad H. (1957), The Strategy of the Genes. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, William C. (1979), “Reduction and Reductionism”, in Asquith, Peter D. and Kyburg, Henry A. Jr. (eds.), Peter D. Asquith and Henry A. Kyburg, Jr. East Lansing, MI: The Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 352–377.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, William C. (1980), “Reductionistic research strategies and their biases in the units of selection controversy”, in Nickles, Thomas (ed.), Scientific Discovery—vol. II: Case Studies. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 213–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, William C. (1986), “Developmental constraints, generative entrenchment, and the innate-acquired distinction”, in Bechtel, William (ed.), Integrating Scientific Disciplines. Martinus-Nijhoff: pp. 185–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, William C. (1999), Re-Engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings: Piecewise Approximations to Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, William C. and Schank, J. (1988), “Two Constraints on the Evolution of Complex Adaptations and the Means for their Avoidance”, in Nitecki, Matthew and Nitecki, Doris (eds.), Evolutionary Progress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 231–273.Google Scholar