Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7xsfk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-29T02:02:58.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Theory Construction in Genetics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2009

Lindley Darden
Lindley Darden
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Get access

Summary

Philosophers of science have had relatively little to say about theory construction. Theories were treated by Popper (1965) and the logical empiricists (e.g., Hempel 1966) as if they arose all at once by a creative leap of the imagination of a scientist, a process whose study was viewed as the province of the psychologist. Only after the creative leap, they agreed, were the philosopher's logical tools useful to evaluate the theory so produced. Even more historical accounts concerned with scientific change, such as Kuhn's (1970), did not discuss the way paradigms or the theories within them were constructed, except that they somehow arose in response to anomalies of their predecessors. Lakatos (1970), who proposed criteria for evaluating progressive research programs, did not discuss how the scientist constructs the program originally, although later additions, he claimed, resulted in some way from the “positive heuristic.” Even Laudan (1977), who made much of the commonplace observation that science is a problem-solving activity, focused on the use of solved or unsolved problems to evaluate theories and research traditions; he did not provide an analysis of how a scientist goes about solving a problem. Thus, most of twentieth-century philosophy of science, from the logical empiricists to the most recent work, has been within the context of justification, not the context of discovery.

Dichotomizing science into these mutually exclusive contexts and concentrating on justification to the exclusion of discovery distorts the ongoing process that characterizes science.

Type
Chapter
Information
Reasoning in Biological Discoveries
Essays on Mechanisms, Interfield Relations, and Anomaly Resolution
 , pp. 149 - 169
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allen, Garland (1978), Thomas Hunt Morgan. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bateson, Beatrice (1928), William Bateson, Naturalist. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bateson, William (1902), Mendel's Principles of Heredity – A Defense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bateson, William (1913), Problems of Genetics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, William, R. C. Punnett, and E. R. Saunders (1905), “Further Experiments on Inheritance in Sweet Peas and Stocks: Preliminary Account,” Proceedings of the Royal Society 77. Reprinted in Punnett, R. C. (1928), Scientific Papers of William Bateson, v. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 139–141.Google Scholar
Bateson, William and R. C. Punnett (1911), “On Gametic Series Involving Reduplication of Certain Terms,” Journal of Genetics 1. Reprinted in Punnett, R. C. (1928), Scientific Papers of William Bateson, v. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 206–215.Google Scholar
Blackwell, R. J. (1969), Discovery in the Physical Science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Boveri, T. (1904), Ergebnisse über die Konstitution der chromatischen Substanz des Zellkern. Jena: G. Fischer.Google Scholar
Bridges, Calvin B. (1914), “Direct Proof Through Non-disjunction that the Sex-linked Genes of Drosophila are Borne by the X-chromosome,” Science, N. S., 40: 107–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brush, Stephen (1978a), “Nettie M. Stevens and the Discovery of Sex Determination by Chromosomes,” Isis 69: 163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brush, Stephen (1978b), “A Geologist Among Astronomers: The Rise and Fall of the Chamberlin-Moulton Cosmogony,” Journal for the History of Astronomy 9: 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Elof A. (1971), “An Unacknowledged Founding of Molecular Biology: H. J. Muller's Contributions to Gene Theory, 1910–1936,” Journal of the History of Biology 4: 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, William (1970), “Bateson and Chromosomes: Conservative Thought in Science,” Centaurus 15: 228–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, Lindley (1976), “Reasoning in Scientific Change: Charles Darwin, Hugo de Vries, and the Discovery of Segregation,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 7: 127–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, Lindley (1977), “William Bateson and the Promise of Mendelism,” Journal of the History of Biology 10: 87–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darden, Lindley (1991), Theory Change in Science: Strategies from Mendelian Genetics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Darden, Lindley and Maull, Nancy (1977), “Interfield Theories,” Philosophy of Science 44: 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, Charles (1868), The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication. New York: Orange Judd & Co.Google Scholar
Gilbert, G. K. (1896), “The Origin of Hypotheses, Illustrated by The Discussion of a Topographic Problem,” Science, N. S., 3: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanson, Norwood Russell ([1961]1970), “Is There a Logic of Scientific Discovery?” in Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. (eds.), Current Issues in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Reprinted in B. Brody (ed.) Readings in the Philosophy of Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 620–633.Google Scholar
Harré, R. (1960), An Introduction to the Logic of the Sciences. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Harré, R. (1970), The Principles of Scientific Thinking. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1966), Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hesse, Mary (1966), Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Janssens, F. A. (1909), “La theorie de la chiasmatypie,” La Cellule 25: 389–411.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre (1970), “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Larry (1977), Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Leatherdale, W. H. (1974), The Role of Analogy, Model and Metaphor in Science. New York: American Elsevier.Google Scholar
Manier, E. (1969), “The Experimental Method in Biology, T. H. Morgan and the Theory of the Gene,” Synthese 20: 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maull, Nancy (1977), “Unifying Science without Reduction,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 8: 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendel, Gregor ([1865] 1966), “Experiments on Plant Hybrids,” translated from German and reprinted in Stern, Curt, and Sherwood, Eva (eds.), The Origin of Genetics, A Mendel Source Book. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman, pp. 1–48.Google Scholar
Morgan, Thomas Hunt (1910a), “Chromosomes and Heredity,” The American Naturalist 44: 449–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Thomas Hunt (1910b), “Sex-Limited Inheritance in Drosophila,” Science 32: 120–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Thomas Hunt (1911b), “Random Segregation versus Coupling in Mendelian Inheritance,” Science 34: 384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Thomas Hunt (1926), The Theory of the Gene. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, Thomas Hunt, Sturtevant, A. H., Muller, H. J., and Bridges, C. B. (1915), The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity. New York: Henry Holt and Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl (1965), The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
Punnett, R. C. (ed.) (1928), Scientific Papers of William Bateson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2 vols.Google Scholar
Roll-Hansen, N. (1978), “Drosophila Genetics: A Reductionist Research Program,” Journal of the History of Biology 11: 159–210.Google Scholar
Shapere, Dudley (1973), Unpublished MS. Presented at IUHPS-LMPS Conference on Relations Between History and Philosophy of Science, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Shapere, Dudley (1974a), “Scientific Theories and Their Domains,” in Suppe, F. (ed.), The Structure of Scientific Theories. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp. 518–565.Google Scholar
Shapere, Dudley (1974b), “On the Relations Between Compositional and Evolutionary Theories,” in Ayala, F. J. and Dobzhansky, T. (eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Biology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, C., and Sherwood, E. (eds.) (1966), The Origin of Genetics, A Mendel Source Book. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Sturtevant, A. H. (1913), “The Linear Arrangement of Six Sex-linked Factors in Drosophila, as Shown by Their Mode of Association,” Journal of Experimental Zoology 14: 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, Walter (1903), “The Chromosomes in Heredity,” Biological Bulletin 4: 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vries, Hugo ([1889] 1910), Intracellular Pangenesis. Translated by C. S. Gager. Chicago, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×