Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T08:19:47.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theoretical Models, Biological Complexity and the Semantic View of Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Barbara L. Horan
Barbara L. Horan*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this paper I discuss how, given the complexity of biological systems, reliance on theoretical models in the development and testing of biological theories leads to anti-realism. This is the result of the uniqueness and hence diversity of biological phenomena, in contrast with the uniformity of items in the domain of physics. I have argued elsewhere (Horan, 1986, 1989a, 1989b) that the use of theoretical models creates an unresolvable tension between the explanatory strength and predictive power of hypotheses, and I review this argument here. My discussion is in part motivated by the claims of Nancy Cartwright (1983), who has argued that the use of ceteris paribus laws in physics creates an antagonism between truth and explanation that requires theoretical models to figure centrally in scientific explanation, thereby precluding realism. I argue instead that in biology it is the use of theoretical models that creates this conflict, and conclude that adequate biological explanation cannot rely on the modelling approach alone.

Type
Part IX. Biology
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1988 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1988 , 1988 , pp. 265 - 277
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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.)

Footnotes

1

I wish to thank Peter Achinstein, John Dupré, Robert Hilborn, Robert Rynasiewicz, Dan Rothbart, and especially Fred Suppe for helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

References

Beatty, J. (1980), “Optimal-Design Models and the Strategy of Model Building in Evolutionary Biology”, Philosophy of Science 47: 532–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beatty, J. (1981), “What's Wrong with the Received View of Evolutionary Theory?”, in PSA 1980, Vol. 2, Asquith, P. and Giere, R. (eds.). East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association: 397–426.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupré, J. (ed.) (1987), The Latest on the Best: Essays on Evolution and Optimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dyke, C. (1985), “Complexity and Closure”, in Evolution at a Crossroads, Depew, D.J. and Weber, B.H. (eds.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 97–131.Google Scholar
Elseth, G.D. and Baumgardner, K.D. (1981), Population Biology. New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Heisler, I.L. (1981), “Offspring Quality and the Polygyny Threshold: A New Model for the “Sexy Son” Hypothesis”, American Naturalist 117: 317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horan, B.L. (1986), “Sociobiology and the Semantic View of Theories”, in PSA 1986, Vol. 1, Asquith, P. and Machemer, P. (eds.). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 322–330.Google Scholar
Horan, B.L. (1989a), “Functional Explanations in Sociobiology”, Biology and Philosophy, Vol. 4, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Horan, B.L. (1989b), “Functional Explanations in Sociobiology: A Reply to Critics”, Biology and Philosophy, Vol. 4, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Kemp, T.S. (1985), “Models of Diversity and Phylogenetic Reconstruction”, in Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 2, Dawkins, R. and Ridley, M. (eds.). New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 135–158.Google Scholar
Lloyd, E. (1984), “A Semantic Approach to the Structure of Population Genetics”, Philosophy of Science 51: 242–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, E. (1986), “Thinking About Models in Evolutionary Theory”, Philosophica 37: 87–100.Google Scholar
Lloyd, E. (1987), “Confirmation of Ecological and Evolutionary Models”, Biology and Philosophy 2: 277–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, E. (1988), The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1961), “Cause and Effect in Biology”, Science 134: 1501–1506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orians, G.H. (1969), “On the Evolution of Mating Systems in Birds and Mammals”, American Naturalist 103: 589–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pielou, E.C. (1981), “The Usefulness of Ecological Models: A Stocktaking”, Quarterly Review of Biology 56: 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richerson, P.J. and Boyd, R. (1987), “Simple Models of Complex Phenomena: The Case of Cultural Evolution”, in The Latest On the Best: Essays on Evolution and Optimality, Dupré, J. (ed.). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Robbins, C.S., Bruun, B. and Zim, H.S. (1966), A Guide to Field Identification of Birds of North America. New York: Golden Press.Google Scholar
Simmons, R.E. (1988), “Food and the Deceptive Acquisition of Mates by Polygynous Male Harriers”, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 23: 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppe, F. (1977), The Structure of Scientific Theories, 2nd ed. Champagne-Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Suppe, F. (1989), The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism. Champagne-Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1960), “A Comparison of the Meaning and Uses of Models in Mathematics and the Empirical Sciences”, Synthese 12: 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, P. (1962), “Models of Data”, in Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress, Nagel, E., Suppes, P. and Tarski, A. (eds.). Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 252–261.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1967), “What is a Scientific Theory?”, in Morgenbesser, S. (ed.) Philosophy of Science Today. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1953), “A General Method in Proofs of Undecidability”, in Undecidable Theories, Tarski, A., Mostowski, A. and Robinson, R.M. (eds.). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. (1983), “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory: A Semantic Approach”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 14: 215–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, P. (1986), “The Interaction of Theories and the Semantic Conception of Evolutionary Theory”, Philosophica 37: 73–86.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. (1988), The Structure of Biological Theories. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. (1967), “Meaning Relations among Predicates”, Nous 1: 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. (1970), “On the Extension of Beth's Semantics of Physical Theories”, Philosophy of Science 37: 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. (1972), “A Formal Approach to the Philosophy of Science”, in Colodny, R. (ed.) Paradigms and Paradoxes. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verner, J. (1964), “The Evolution of Polygamy in the Long-billed Marsh Wren”, Evolution 18: 252–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verner, J. and Willson, F. (1966), “The Influence of Habitats on Mating Systems of North American Passerine Birds”, Ecology 47: 143–147;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherhead, P.J. and Robertson, R.J. (1977), “Harem size, territory quality and reproductive success in the redwinged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus)”, Canadian Journal of Zoology 55: 1261–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherhead, P.J. and Robertson, R.J. (1979), “Offspring Quality and the Polygyny Threshold: the Sexy-Son Hypothesis”, American Naturalist 113: 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherhead, P.J. and Robertson, R.J. (1981), “In Defense of the ‘Sexy Son’ Hypothesis”, American Naturalist 117: 349–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittenberger, J.F. (1981), “Male Quality and Polygyny: The ‘Sexy Son’ Hypothesis Revisited”, American Naturalist 117: 329-342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar