Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:09:41.092Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Babies, Bathwater and Derivational Reduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Arthur Caplan
Arthur Caplan*
Affiliation:
Hastings Center, School of Public Health Columbia University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

There has been a good deal of discussion of the subject of reductionism in the literature of the history and philosophy of science. It would not be an understatement to claim that the standard or received account of the reduction of theories in science, characterized both by its close attention to the supposed connectability of terms between the theories involved in reduction, and, by the prominence assigned to derivation as the core of the reductionistic enterprise [27], has not fared well in recent critical evaluations ([7], [10], [11], [16], [17], [18], [19], [26], [29], [30], [38]). The derivational view of reduction, or at least the version put forth by Ernest Nagel in his book, The Structure of Science, has been criticized as impractical, inaccurate, idealized, distorting, sterile, and even incoherent [38]. Perhaps the most decimating of all the charges brought against the Nagelian account of derivational reduction is that there is not a single instance of derivational reduction to be found anywhere in the entire annals of scientific inquiry([3], [4], [38]).

Type
Part IX. Reduction
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1978 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1978 , 1978 , pp. 357 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 Philosophy of Science Association

Footnotes

1

I would like to thank Caroline Whitbeck and Walter Bock for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

[1] Achinstein, P. Concepts of Science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1968.Google Scholar
[2] Bendal, J.R. Muscles. Molecules, and Movement. New York: American Elsevier, 1969.Google Scholar
[3] Brush, S.G. “Should the History of Science be Rated X?” Science 183(1974): 1164–1172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[4] Brush, S.G. “Statistical Mechanics and the Philosophy of Science: Some Historical Notes.” In PSA 1976. Volume 2. Edited by Suppe, F. and Asquith, P.D.. East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association, 1977. Pages 551–584.Google Scholar
[5] Burian, R.M. “More Than a Marriage of Convenience: On the Inextricability of History and Philosophy of Science.” Philosophy of Science 44(1977): 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6] Causey, R.L. “Uniform Microreductions.” Synthese 25(1972): 176–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7] Darden, L. and Maull, N. “Interfield Theories.” Philosophy of Science 44(1977): 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8] Davies, R.E. “A Molecular Theory of Muscle Contraction.” Nature 199(1963): 1068–1074.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[9] Fenn, W.O. “The Relation Between the Work Performed and the Energy Liberated in Muscle Contraction.” Journal of Physiology 58(1924): 373–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Feyerabend, P. “Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge.” In Analyses of Theories and Methods of Physics and Psychology. (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. IV.) Edited by Radner, M. and Winokur, S. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1970. Pages 17–130.Google Scholar
[11] Feyerabend, P. “Problems of Empiricism, II.” In The Nature and Function of Scientific Theory. (University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science. Volume 4.) Edited by Colodny, R. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1970. Pages 275–353.Google Scholar
[12] Gordon, A.M., Huxley, A.F. and Julian, F. “The Variation in Isometric Tension with Sarcomere Length in Vertebrate Muscle Fibres.”. Journal of Physiology 184(1966): 170–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[13] Hanson, J. and Huxley, H.E. “The Structural Basis of Contraction in Striated Muscle.” Symposium of the Society for Experimental Biology 9(1955): 228–258.Google Scholar
[14] Hill, A.V. “The Heat of Shortening and the Dynamic Constants of Muscle.” Proceedings Royal Society B 126(1938): 136–195.Google Scholar
[15] Hill, A.V. Trails and Trials in Physiology. Baltimore: Wilkins & Wilkins, 1965.Google Scholar
[16] Hull, D.L. “Reduction in Genetics—Biology or Philosophy?” Philosophy of Science 39(1972): 491–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17] Hull, D.L. “Reduction in Genetics—Doing the Impossible.” In Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Volume IV. (Proceedings of the 1972 International Congress for Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science.) Edited by Suppes, P. et al. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1973. Pages 619–635.Google Scholar
[18] Hull, D.L. Philosophy of the Biological Sciences. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1974.Google Scholar
[19] Hull, D.L. “Informal Aspects of Theory Reduction.” In PSA 1974. (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Volume 32.) Edited by Cohen, R.S., et al. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1976. Pages 653–670.Google Scholar
[20] Huxley, A.F. “Muscle Structure and Theories of Contraction.” Progress in Biophysics 7(1957): 255–318.Google ScholarPubMed
[21] Huxley, A.F. “Muscular Contraction.” Journal of Physiology 243(1974): 1–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[22] Huxley, A.F. and Taylor, R.E. “Local Activation of Striated Fibres.” Journal of Physiology 144(1958): 426–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23] Huxley, H.E. “Muscular Contraction.” Endeavour 15(1956): 177–188.Google Scholar
[24] Lakatos, I. “History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions.” In PSA 1970. (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume 8.) Edited by Buck, R.C. and Cohen, R.S.. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1971. Pages 91–136.Google Scholar
[25] Laudan, L. “Two Dogmas of Methodology.” Philosophy of Science 43(1976): 585–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[26] Maull, N.R. “Unifying Science Without Reduction.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 8(1977): 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[27] Nagel, E. The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[28] Needham, D.M. Machina Carnis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[29] Nickles, T. “Two Concepts of Intertheoretic Reduction.” Journal of Philosophy 70(1973): 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[30] Ruse, M. Philosophy of Biology. London: Hutchinson, 1973.Google Scholar
[31] Sandow, Alexander. “Skeletal Muscle.” Annual Review of Physiology. 32(1970): 87–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[32] Schaffner, K.F. “Logic of Discovery and Justification in Regulatory Genetics.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 4(1974): 319–385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[33] Schaffner, K.F. “The Peripherally of Reductionists in the Development of Molecular Biology.” Journal of the History of Biology 7(1974): 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[34] Shapere, D. “Scientific Theories and Their Domains.” In The Structure of Scientific Theories. Edited by Suppe, F. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1974. Pages 518–599.Google Scholar
[35] Simon, M. The Matter of Life. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
[36] Sklar, L. “Types of Inter-theoretic Reduction.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 18(1967): 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[37] Sklar, L. “Thermodynamics, Statistical Mechanics, and the Complexity of Reductions.” In PSA 1974. (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume 32.) Edited by Cohen, R.S. et al. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1976. Pages 15–32.Google Scholar
[38] Suppe, F. (ed.). The Structure of Scientific Theories. 2nd ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1977.Google Scholar
[39] Wilkie, D.R. “Muscle.” Annual Review of Physiology 28(1966): 17–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[40] Wilkie, D.R. Muscle. London: Edward Arnold, 1968.Google ScholarPubMed