Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T10:28:19.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Artificial Intelligence and Philosophy of Science Reasoning by Analogy in Theory Construction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Lindley Darden
Lindley Darden*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As a historian and philosopher of science, I am interested in the process of the construction of new scientific theories. The hypothesis to be explored in this paper is that analogies may play an important role in the generation of new ideas that are built into new theories.

In order to make clear the locus of my discussion, I would like to present an over-simplified view of the levels of organization of scientific knowledge. The three levels are the following: data, empirical generalizations, and explanatory theories. At the lowest level of generality are the data, particular statements about, particular facts. For example, if we consider data from genetics, in a cross between a yellow pea plant and a green pea plant, all the peas of the first generation of hybrids are yellow; if the hybrids are self-fertilized, the second hybrid generation has a ratio of three yellow peas to one green pea.

Type
Part III. Discovery, Heuristics, and Artificial Intelligence
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1982 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1982 , 1982 , pp. 147 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 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 would like to thank students in my seminars on analogical reasoning at the Computer Science Department at Stanford and the Philosophy Department at Maryland for their many helpful comments on the ideas in this paper. Also helpful were comments I received at the Philosophy Departments of Vassar and American University and the Computer Science Department at Rutgers, where I presented earlier drafts. I especially thank Bruce Buchanan, Russell Greiner, Lars Rodseth, Richard Kellar, David Kohn, Louis Steinberg, and Marcia Kraft for specific comments and suggestions. I appreciate the time and space provided for research and writing over the last two years by sabbatical leave and a General Research Board Grant from University of Maryland, a visiting scholar position with the Heuristic Programming Project at Stanford, a guest account on the SUHEX-AIM computing facility, a research fellowship from the American Council of Learned Societies, and a visiting scholar position at the Department of History of Science at Harvard.

References

Burnet, F.M. (1957). “A Modification of Jerne's Theory of Antibody Production using the Concept of Clonal Selection.” The Australian Journal of Science 20: 67-69.Google Scholar
Darwin, Charles. (1859). The Origin of Species. London: John Murray. (Reprint of First Edition. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin, 1968.Google Scholar
Darwin, Charles. (1876). “Autobiography.” (As reprinted in The Autobiography of Charles Darwin and Selected Letters. New York: Dover, 1958. Pages 5-58.Google Scholar
Darwin, Charles. (1881). The Power of Movement in Plants. New York: De Appleton and Co. (As reprinted New York: De Capo Press, 1966.Google Scholar
De, Beer, Sir, Gavin. (1965). Charles Darwin: A Scientific Biography. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday.Google Scholar
Genesereth, Michael R. (1980). “Metaphors and Models.” In Proceedings of the First Annual National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Menlo Park, California: American Association of Artificial Intelligence. Pages 208-211.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre. (1980). “The Structure of Analogical Models in Science.” Cambridge, Mass.: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc. Report No. 4451.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, Michael T. (1969). The Triumph of the Darwinian Method. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Golub, Edward S. (1981). The Cellular Basis of the Immune Response. 2nd ed. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen J. (1977). Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hanson, Norwood R. (1961). “Is There a Logic of Scientific Discovery?” In Current Issues in the Philosophy of Science. Edited by Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G.. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Pages 20-35. (As reprinted in Readings in the Philosophy of Science. Edited by B. Brody. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Pages 620-633.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl. (1966). Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Herbert, Sandra. (1971). “Darwin, Malthus, and Selection.” Journal of the History of Biology 4: 209-217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesse, Mary. (1966). Models and Analogies In Science. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Jerne, Niels K. (1955). “The Natural-Selection Theory of Antibody Formation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 42: 849-857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jerne, Niels K. (1966). “The Natural Selection Theory of Antibody Formation; Ten Years Later.” In Phase and the Origins of Molecular Biology. Edited by John Cairns et al . Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory of Quantitative Biology. Pages 302-312.Google Scholar
King, J.L. and Jukes, T.H. (1969). “Non-Darwinian Evolution.” Science 164: 788-798.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kling, R.E. (1971). “An Information Processing Approach to Reasoning by Analogy.” Menlo Park, California: Stanford Research Institute, Artificial Intelligence Group, Technical Note 56.Google Scholar
Kohn, David. (1980). “Theories to Work By: Rejected Theories, Reproduction and Darwin's Path to Natural Selection.” Studies in the History of Biology 4: 67-170.Google Scholar
Lamarck, J.B. (1809). Philosophie Zoologioue. Paris: Dentu et L'Auteur. (As reprinted as Zoological Philosophy, (trans.) H. Elliot. New York: Hafner, 1963.Google Scholar
Malthus, Thomas R. (1798). An Essay on the Principle of Population. London: J. Johnson. (As reprinted as An Essay on the Principle of Population and a Summary View of the Principle of Population. (ed.) Antony Flew. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin, 1970.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1975). “A Framework for Representing Knowledge.” In The Psychology of Computer Vision. Edited by Winston, P.H.. New York: McGraw Hill. Pages 211-277.Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, Robert. (1956). “Analogy in Science.” American Psychologist 11: 127-135.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. (1934). Logik der Forschung. Vienna: Springer. (As reprinted as The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1979.Google Scholar
Ruse, Michael. (1973a). The Nature of Scientific Models: Formal v. Material Analogy.” Philosophy of Social Science 3: 63-80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, Michael. (1973b). “The Value of Analogical Models in Science.” Dialogue 12: 246-253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweber, Silvan. (1977). “The Origin of the Origin Revisited.” Journal of the History of Biology 10: 229-316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, Paul, (forthcoming). “Frames, Knowledge and Inference.” Pittsburgh Studies in the Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen. (1972). Human Understanding. Volume 1. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
VanLehn, Kurt and Brown, John Seely. (1980). “Planning Nets: A Representation for Formalizing Analogies and Semantic Models of Procedural Skills.” In Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction. Vol. II: Cognitive Process Analyses of Learning and Problem Solving. Edited by R.E. Snow et al. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Pages 95-137.Google Scholar
Vries, Hugo de. (1901-3). Die Mutationstheorie. Leipzig: Veit & Co. (As reprinted as The Mutation Theory. 2 vols. (trans.) Farmer, J.B. and Darbishire, A.D.. New York: Kraus Reprint Company, 1967.)Google Scholar