Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:16:04.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Do Biologists Argue Like They Do?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

John Beatty
John Beatty*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
*
†Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour, 100 Ecology Building, 1987 Upper Buford Circle, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108-6097.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

“Theoretical pluralism” obtains when there are good evidential reasons for accommodating multiple theories of the same domain. Issues of “relative significance” often arise in connection with the investigation of such domains. In this paper, I describe and give examples of theoretical pluralism and relative significance issues. Then I explain why theoretical pluralism so often obtains in biology—and why issues of relative significance arise—in terms of evolutionary contingencies and the paucity or lack of laws of biology. Finally, I turn from explanation to justification, and raise questions about the purpose and value of concerns and disagreements about relative significance.

Type
Symposium: Are There Laws of Biology?
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 64 , Issue S4: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1996 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers Dec., 1997 , 1997 , pp. S432 - S443
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1997

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

Allchin, D. (1994), “The Super Bowl and the Ox-Phos Controversy: ‘Winner-Take-All’ Controversy in Philosophy of Science”, in Hull, D., Forbes, M., and Burian, R. M. (eds.), PSA 1994, vol. 1. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 22–33.Google Scholar
Beatty, J. (1987), “Weighing the Risks: Stalemate in the Classical/Balance Controversy”, Journal of the History of Biology 20: 289–319.10.1007/BF00139457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beatty, J. (1995), “The Evolutionary Contingency Thesis”, in Lennox, J. G. and Wolters, G. (eds.), Concepts, Theories and Rationality in the Biological Sciences. Konstanz, Germany: University of Konstanz Press, and Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 45–81.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. S. (1963), “On Biochemical Variability and Innovation”, Science 139: 1017–1026.10.1126/science.139.3559.1017CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crick, F. H. C. (1968), “The Origin of the Genetic Code”, Journal of Molecular Biology 19: 367–397.10.1016/0022-2836(68)90392-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crick, F. H. C. (1970), “Central Dogma of Molecular Biology”, Nature 227: 561–563.10.1038/227561a0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crow, J. (1979), “Genes that Violate Mendel's Rules”, Scientific American 240 (2): 134–146.10.1038/scientificamerican0279-134CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darden, L. (1995), “Exemplars, Abstractions, and Anomalies”, in Lennox, J. G. and Wolters, G. (eds.), Concepts, Theories and Rationality in the Biological Sciences. Konstanz, Germany: University of Konstanz Press, and Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 45–81.Google Scholar
Darden, L. (1996), “Generalizations in Biology”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 27: 409–419.10.1016/0039-3681(95)00050-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darwin, C. ([1859] 1966), On the Origin of Species. Facsimile of the 1st edition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1872), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, 6th ed. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Gillespie, J. H. (1991), The Causes of Molecular Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1980), “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” Paleobiology 6: 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. and Lewontin, R. C. (1979), “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B205: 581–598.Google Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1987), “Genealogical Actors in Ecological Roles”, Biology and Philosophy 2: 168–184.Google Scholar
Jacob, F. (1988), The Statue Within. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Jacob, F. and Monod, J. (1961a), “Genetic Regulatory Mechanisms in the Synthesis of Proteins”, Journal of Molecular Biology 3: 318–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacob, F. and Monod, J. (1961b), “On the Regulation of Gene Activity”, Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 26: 193–209.10.1101/SQB.1961.026.01.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimura, M. (1983), The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511623486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lande, R. (1980), “Microevolution in Relation to Macroevolution”, Paleobiology 6:235–238.Google Scholar
Lewin, B. (1990), Genes IV. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1974), The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Macy Foundation, Josiah (1963), “Fifth Conference on Genetics”, typescript.Google Scholar
Mitchell, S. (1992), “On Pluralism and Competition in Evolutionary Explanations”, American Zoologist 32: 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monod, J. and Jacob, F. (1961), “General Conclusions: Teleonomic Mechanisms in Cellular Metabolism, Growth, and Differentiation”, Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 26: 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osawa, S. (1995), Evolution of the Genetic Code. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Otte, D. and Endler, J. A. (eds.) (1989), Speciation and its Consequences. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Schaffner, K. F. (1993), Discovery and Explanation in the Biology and Medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Yanofsky, C. (1981), “Attenuation in the Control of Expression of Bacterial Operons”. Nature 289: 751–758.10.1038/289751a0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yanofsky, C. (1992), “Transcription Regulation: Elegance in Design and Discovery”, in McKnight, S. L. and Yamamoto, K. R. (eds.), Transcriptional Regulation. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, pp. 3–24.Google Scholar