Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-246sw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-17T02:58:14.194Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Supervenience of Biological Concepts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Alexander Rosenberg
Alexander Rosenberg*
Affiliation:
Syracuse University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper the concept of supervenience is employed to explain the relationship between fitness as employed in the theory of natural selection and population biology and the physical, behavioral and ecological properties of organisms that are the subjects of lower level theories in the life sciences. The aim of this analysis is to account simultaneously for the fact that the theory of natural selection is a synthetic body of empirical claims, and for the fact that it continues to be misconstrued, even by biologists, for a tautological system. The notion of supervenience is then employed to provide a new statement of the relation of Mendelian predicates to molecular ones in order to provide for the commensurability and potential reducibility of Mendelian to molecular genetics in a way that circumvents the theoretical complications which appear to stand in the way of such a reduction.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , September 1978 , pp. 368 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1978

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

For useful comments on earlier versions of this paper I owe thanks to David Hull, Michael Ruse and William Wimsatt. None of these persons should, however, be assumed to agree with my claims.

References

[1] Bossart, W., & Wilson, E. O. Primer of Population Genetics. Stamford: Sinauer, 1971.Google Scholar
[2] Craig, W. “Replacement of Auxiliary Expressions.” Philosophical Review 65 (1956): 38–55.Google Scholar
[3] Davidson, D. “The Individuation of Events.” In Rescher, et al. (ed.), Essays in Honor of Carl Hempel. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1969: pp. 140–147.Google Scholar
[4] Davidson, D. “Mental Events.” In Foster, et al. (eds.) Experience and theory.: Amherst, University of Massachusetts Press, 1970.Google Scholar
[5] Fodor, J. A. Psychological Explanation. New York: Random House, 1968.Google Scholar
[6] Hull, D. Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1974.Google Scholar
[7] Hull, D. “Informal Aspects of Theory Reduction.” In [11]. ppGoogle Scholar
[8] Kim, J. “Nomological Incommensurables.” Oberlin Colloquium, 1977.Google Scholar
[9] Levins, R. Evolution in Changing Environments. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968.10.1515/9780691209418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Levins, R. “Strategy for Model Building in Population Biology.” American Scientist 54 (1966): 421–431.Google Scholar
[11] Michalos, A. and Cohen, R. PSA 1974. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1976.Google Scholar
[12] Peters, R. H. “Tautology in Evolution and Ecology.” American Naturalist 110 (1976): 1–12.10.1086/283045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13] Ruse, M. Philosophy of Biology. London: Hutchinson, 1973.Google Scholar
[14] Ruse, M. “Reduction in Genetics.” In [11]. pp. 633–651.10.1007/978-94-010-1449-6_36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15] Schaffner, K. “Approaches to Reduction.” Philosophy of Science 34 (1967): 137–147.10.1086/288137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16] Williams, M. B. “Deducing the Consequences of Evolution.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 29 (1970): 343–385.10.1016/0022-5193(70)90103-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[17] Wilson, F., et al. Pragmatism and Purpose. Toronto: University Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar