Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T15:43:10.704Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Do You Falsify a Question?: Crucial Tests versus Crucial Demonstrations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Douglas Allchin
Douglas Allchin*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

How is the deep disagreement between what Kuhn characterized as paradigms ultimately resolved and how do we interpret such debates epistemically? A close analysis of the Ox-Phos Controversy in bioenergetics from the 1960s and 70s (§§2-3 below) suggests that one justifies a set of questions through an ensemble of empirical demonstrations. This contrasts to decisions between theoretical alternatives through ‘crucial experiments'. When viewed along with other historical episodes, this case suggests a philosophical category of ‘demonstrations', distinguished from crucial tests and complementary in justificatory status to falsifying instances. The distinction also suggests specific strategies for scientists (§4).

The Ox-Phos Controversy is an especially valuable case for studying theory development and scientific change, and for investigating the problems of disagreement, originally highlighted by Kuhn, where two incompatible conceptual or experimental gestalts converge on the same empirical domain (see also Gilbert and Mulkay 1984a; 1984b; Robinson 1984; 1986; Rowen 1986; Weber 1986; 1991; Allchin 1990; 1991).

Type
Part II. Experimentation
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1992 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1992 , 1992 , pp. 74 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 by the 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.)

References

Allchin, D. (1990), “Paradigms, Populations and Problem Fields: Approaches to Disagreement”, in PSA 1990, Volume 1, Fine, A., Forbes, M. and Wessels, L. (eds.). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp.53-66.Google Scholar
Allchin, D. (1991), Resolving Disagreement in Science: The Ox-Phos Controversy, 1961-1977. Ph.D. dissertation, Comm. on the Conceptual Foundations of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Azzone, G.F. (1972), “Oxidative Phosphorylation, A History of Unsuccessful Attempts: Is It Only an Explanatory Problem?”, Journal of Bioenergetics 3:95-103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, W.M. (1977), Energy and the Living Cell. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott.Google Scholar
Boyer, P.D., Chance, B., Ernster, L., Mitchell, P., Racker, E., and Slater, E.C. (1977), “Oxidative Phosphorylation and Photophosphorylation”, Annual Review of Biochemistry 46:955-1026.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chance, B., Lee, C.P., and Schoener, B. (1966), “High and Low Energy States of Cytochromes. II. In Submitochondrial Particles”, Journal of Biological Chemistry 241:4574-76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chance, B., and Mela, L. (1966), “A Hydrogen Concentration Gradient in a Mitochondrial Membrane”, Nature 212: 369-72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chance, B., Lee, C.P. and Mela, L. (1967), “Control and Conservation of Energy in the Cytochrome Chain”, Federation Proceedings 26:1341-54.Google ScholarPubMed
Cooper, C. and Lehninger, A.L. (1957), “Oxidative Phosphorylation by an Enzyme Complex from Extracts of Mitochondria”, Journal of Biological Chemistry 224:547-578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curtis, H. (1979), Biology, 3rd edition.New York: Worth.Google Scholar
Darden, L. (1991), Strategies for Theory Change: The Case of the Theory of the Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dyson, R.D. (1975), Essentials of Cell Biology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Ernster, L. (1979), “The Nobel Prize for Chemistry”, Les PrixNobels, Nobelstiftelsen. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, pp. 24-26.Google Scholar
Giere, R. (1988), Explaining Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, G.N. and Mulkay, M.. (1984a), “Experiments are the Key: Participants’ Histories and Historians’ Histories of Science,” Isis 75:105-25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, G.N.. (1984b), Opening Pandora’s Box. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Glymour, C. (1975), Theory and Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. (1965), Fact, Fiction, and Forecast, 2nd edition. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Goodman, N.. (1978), Ways ofWorldmaking. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Greville, G.D. (1969), “A Scrutiny of Mitchell’s Chemiosmotic Hypothesis of Respiratory Chain and Photosynthetic Phosphorylation”, Current Topics in Bioenergetics 3:1-78.Google Scholar
Griesemer, J.R. and Wimsatt, W.C. (1989), “Picturing Weismannism: A Case Study of Conceptual Evolution”, in What the Philosophy of Biology Is, Ruse, Michael (ed.). Boston: Kluwer Academic, pp.75-137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, D. (1963), “A New Phosphorylated Derivative of NAD, an Intermediate in Oxidative Phosphorylation”, Federation Proceedings 22:1064-70.Google ScholarPubMed
Griffiths, D.. (1965), “Oxidative Phosphorylation”, Essays in Biochemistry 1:91-120.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1983), Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C.G. (1966), Philosophy of Natural Science, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Howson, C. and Urbach, P. (1989), Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach. La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
Huszagh, V.A. and Infante, J.P. (1989), “The Hypothetical Way of Progress”, Nature 338:109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jagendorf, A.: and Uribe, E. (1966), “ATP Formation Caused by Acid-Base Transition of Spinach Chloroplasts”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 55:170-77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keeton, W.T. (1972), Biological Science, 2nd edition. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, K.D. (1981), The Manufacture of Knowledge. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Komai, H., Hunter, D.R., Southward, J.H., Haworth, R.A., and Green, D.E. (1976), “Energy Coupling in Lysolecithin-treated Submitochondrial Particles”, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 69: 695-704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, T.S. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1970), “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes”, reprinted in Worrall, J. and Currie, G. (eds.), The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, Philosophical Papers (Volume 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1978), pp.8-101.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1987), Science in Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1977), Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. and Laudan, R. (1989), “Dominance and the Disunity of Method”, Philosophy of Science 56:221-37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehninger, A.L. (1960), “Oxidative Phosphorylation in Submitochondrial Systems”, Federation Proceedings 19:952-62.Google ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, P. (1961a), “Conduction of Protons Through the Membrane of Mitochondria and Bacteria by Uncouplers of Oxidative Phosphorylation”, Biochemical Journal 81: 24P.Google Scholar
Mitchell, P.. (1961b), “Coupling of Phosphorylation to Electron and Hydrogen Transfer by a Chemi-Osmotic Type of Mechanism”, Nature 191:144-48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, P.. (1966), Chemiosmotic Coupling in Oxidative and Photosynthetic Phosphorylation. Bodmin, U.K.: Glynn Research Laboratories.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, P.. (1980), “The Culture of the Imagination”, Journal of the Royal Institute of Cornwall 3(3): 173-91Google Scholar
Mitchell, P.. (1981a), “Bioenergetic Aspects of Unity in Biochemistry: Evolution of the Concept of Ligand Conduction in Chemical, Osmotic, and Chemiosmotic Reaction Mechanisms”, in Of Oxygen, Fuels and Living Matter (Part 1), Semenza, G. (ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp.1-56.Google Scholar
Mitchell, P.. (1981b), “From Black-Box Energetics to Molecular Mechanics: Vectorial Ligand-Conduction Mechanisms in Biochemistry”, in Skulachev, V.P. and Hinkle, P.C. (eds.) Chemiosmotic Proton Circuits in Biological Membranes. London: Addison-Wesley, pp.611-33.Google Scholar
Nickles, T. (1980), “Introductory Essay,” Scientific Discovery, Logic, and Rationality, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume 56, Nickles, T. (ed.). Dordrecht: Reidel, pp.1-59.Google Scholar
Nickles, T. (1981), “What is a Problem That We May Solve It?” Synthese 47:85-118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Painter, A.A., and Hunter, F.E. Jr. (1970), “Phosphorylation Coupled to Oxidation of Thiol Groups (GSH) by Cytochrome c with Disulfide (GSSG) as an Essential Catalyst. I-IV.”, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 40: 360-95.Google Scholar
Pickering, A. (1984), Constructing Quarks. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Racker, E. (1970), “Function and Structure of the Inner Membrane of Mitochondria and Chloroplasts”, in Racker, E. (ed.) Membranes of Mitochondria and Chloroplasts. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp.127-171.Google Scholar
Racker, E. and Horstman, L.L. (1972), “Mechanism and Control of Oxidative Phosphorylation” in Energy Metabolism and the Regulation of Metabolic Proceses in Mitochondria, Mehlman, M.A. and Hanson, R.W. (eds.). New York: Academic Press, pp.1-25.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. (1984), ‘The Chemiosmotic Hypothesis of Energy Coupling and the Path of Scientific Opportunity”, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 27: 367-383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, J. (1986), “Appreciating Key Experiments”, British Journal of the History of Science 19:51-56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowen, L. (1986), Normative Epistemology and Scientific Research: Reflections on the “Ox-Phos” Controversy, A Case History in Biochemistry. Ph.D. dissertation, Nashville: Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. (1984), Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. (1984), “Scientific Theories and Their Domains”, in The Structure of Scientific Theories, Suppe, F. (ed.). Champaign: University of Illinois Press, pp.518-565.Google Scholar
Simon, H. (1969), “The Architecture of Complexity”, in The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp.192-229.Google Scholar
Slater, E.C. (1966), “Oxidative Phosphorylation”, in Comprehensive Biochemistry, Volume 14, Florkin, M. and Stotz, E.H. (eds.). Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp.327-96.Google Scholar
Slater, E.C.. (1967), “An Evaluation of the Mitchell Hypothesis of Chemiosmotic Coupling in Oxidative and Photosynthetic Phosphorylation”, European Journal of Biochemistry 1: 317-26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slater, E.C. (1971), “The Coupling Between Energy-Yielding and Energy-Utilizing Reactions in Mitochondria”, Quarterly Review of Biophysics 4:35-71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, E.C.. (1981), “The Cytochrome b Paradox, the BAL-labile Factor and the Q Cycle”, in Chemiosmotic Proton Circuits in Biological Membranes, Skulachev, V.P. and Hinkle, P.C. (eds.). London: Addison-Wesley, pp.69-104.Google Scholar
Tedeschi, H., (1980), “The Mitochondrial Membrane Potential”, Biological Reviews 55: 171-206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tupper, J.T. and Tedeschi, H. (1969), “Microelectrode Studies in the Membrane Properties of Isolated Mitochondria”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 63: 370-77.Google ScholarPubMed
Weber, B. (1986), “The Impact of the Prague Symposium on the Conceptual Development of Bioenergetics: A Retrospective and Prospective View”, in Ion Gradient-Coupled Transport, INSERM Symposium No. 26, Alvardo, F. and van Os, C.H. (eds.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Weber, B.. (1991), “Glynn and the Conceptual Development of the Chemiosmotic Theory: A Retrospective and Prospective View”, in Bioscience Reports 11(6).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitt, L.A. (1990), “Theory Pursuit: Between Discovery and Acceptance”, in PSA 1990, Volume 1, Fine, A. , Forbes, M. and Wessels, L. (eds.), Philosophy of Science Association, pp.467-483.Google Scholar
Wilson, D.F., Dutton, P.L., Erecinska, M., Lindsay, J.G. and Sato, N. (1972), “Mitochondrial Electron Transport and Energy Conservation”, Accounts of Chemical Research 5:234-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W.C. (1980), “Reductionistic Research Strategies and Their Biases in the Units of Selection Controversy”, in Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume 60, Nickles, T. (ed.),. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp.213-59.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W.C.. (1981), “Robustness, Reliability and Overdetermination,” in Scientific Inquiry in the Social Sciences, Brewer, M. and Collins, B. (eds.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp.124-63.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W.C. (1987), “False Models as a Means to Truer Theories,” in Neutral Models in Biology, Nitecki, M. and Hoffman, A. (eds.). Oxford University Press, pp.23-35.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W.C. (1992), “Golden Generalities and Co-opted Anomalies: Haldane vs. Muller and the Drosophila Group on the Theory and Practice of Linkage Mapping”, in Fisher, Haldane, Muller and Wright: Founders of the Modern Mathematical Theory of Evolution, Sarkar, S. (ed.). Dordrecht: Martinus-Nijhoff.Google Scholar