Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T20:31:57.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reduction in Genetics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

David L. Hull
David L. Hull*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a recent paper, William K. Goosens (1978) objects to the arguments I set out some time ago attacking the logical empiricist analysis of reduction as applied to genetics (Hull 1972, 1973, 1974, 1976a). In these works I did not argue against the claim that Mendelian genetics was being reduced to molecular biology. Nor did I conclude, as Goosens asserts, that in the case of genetics, “reduction is insignificant” (p. 93). To the contrary, I repeatedly stated that, “given our pre-analytic intuitions about reduction,” the reduction of Mendelian to molecular genetics “is a case of reduction, a paradigm case” (Hull 1974 p. 44). And in agreement with Kenneth Schaffner (1967) I argued that reduction “in some very important, pre-analytic sense has taken place and is taking place in genetics” (Hull 1973, p. 634). The target of my objections to reduction in genetics was not “reduction” in some pre-analytic sense. Nor was it the various explications which have appeared since. Rather it was the notion of theory reduction set out a generation ago by such logical empiricists as Ernest Nagel (1961), The particular version of this analysis which I chose to attack was that presented by Schaffner (1967, 1969); for Schaffner's later views, see his (1974, 1976, 1977). I chose Schaffner's explication to attack because I thought it was the best of its kind and because it was the only defense of the logical empiricist analysis at the time which used genetics as one of its chief examples. Contrary to Goosens' assumption, in criticizing Schaffner's explication, I did not thereby “endorse” it (p. 82).

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , June 1979 , pp. 316 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1979

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

Goosens, W. K. (1978), “Reduction by Molecular Genetics.” Philosophy of Science 45: 73–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1972), “Reduction in Genetics—Biology or Philosophy?” Philosophy of Science 39: 491–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1973), “Reduction in Genetics—Doing the Impossible.” In Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science IV. (Ed. Suppes, P. et. al.) North-Holland: Amsterdam, pp. 619–635.Google Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1974), Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1975), “Central Subjects and Historical Narratives.” History and Theory 14: 253–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1976a), “Informal Aspects of Theory Reduction.” In Proceedings of the 1974 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. (Ed. Cohen, R. S. et. al.) D. Reidel: Dordrecht-Holland, pp. 653–670.Google Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1976b), “Are Species Really Individuals?” Systematic Zoology 25: 174–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1978), “A Matter of Individuality.” Philosophy of Science, 45:335–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, (1970), “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. (Ed. Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A.) Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 91–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1977), Progress and Its Problems. University of California Press: Berkeley.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. (1961), The Structure of Science. Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, M. (1971a), “Two Biological Revolutions.” Dialectica 25: 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, M. (1971b), “Reduction, Replacement, and Molecular Biology.” Dialectica 25: 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, M. (1973), The Philosophy of Biology. Hutchinson University Library: London.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. (1976), “Reduction in Genetics.” In Proceedings of the 1974 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. (Ed. Cohen, R. S. et. al.) D. Reidel: Dordrecht-Holland, pp. 633–651.Google Scholar
Schaffner, K. (1967), “Approaches to Reduction.” Philosophy of Science 34: 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, K. (1969), “The Watson-Crick Model and Reductionism.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 20: 325–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, K. (1974), “The Peripherality of Reductionism in the Development of Molecular Biology.” Journal of the History of Biology 7: 111–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaffner, K. (1976), “Reductionism in Biology: Prospects and Problems.” In Proceedings of the 1974 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. (Ed. Cohen, R. S. et. al.) D. Reidel: Dordrecht-Holland, pp. 613–632.Google Scholar
Schaffner, K. (1977), “Reduction, Reductionism, Values, and Progress in the Biomedical Sciences.” In Logic, Laws, and Life. (Ed. Colodny, R.) University of Pittsburgh Press: Pittsburgh, pp. 143–171.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1972), Human Understanding. Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar