Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:21:17.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Material Models in Biology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

James R. Griesemer
James R. Griesemer*
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
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.

Propositions are no more constitutive of science than they are of any activity: a body of knowledge is not all there is to the life of science. Thus I take the premise underlying the topic of this symposium to be uncontroversial, there is a “non-propositional” side of science and of biology in particular. From time to time, however, philosophers ask whether the “non-propositional” side of science is theoretically superfluous, or as Duhem put it, logically dispensable. What they mean to ask is whether science can be fully analyzed in propositional terms; must philosophy of science, in other words, consider the non-propositional side in order to adequately account for science?

Negative answers to the question often rest on the tacit view that the most (or only) important thing about science is scientific theories.

Type
Part III. Biology: The Non-Propositional Side
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1990 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1990 , 1990 , pp. 79 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1991

References

Achinstein, P. (1968), Concepts of Science, A Philosophical Analysis. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Buss, L. (1987), The Evolution of Individuality. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1976), The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1982), The Extended Phenotype. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Griesemer, J. (1990), “Modeling in the Museum: On the Role of Remnant Models in the Work of Joseph Grinnell”, Biology and Philosophy. 5: 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griesemer, J. (1991), “Must Scientific Diagrams Be Eliminable? The Case of Path Analysis”, Biology and Philosoph. 6:155–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griesemer, J. (submitted), “The Informational Gene and the Substantial Body: On the Generalization of Evolutionary Theory by Abstraction”.Google Scholar
Griesemer, J. and Wimsatt, W. (1989), “Picturing Weismannism: A Case Study of Conceptual Evolution”, in M., Ruse (ed.), What the Philosophy of Biology Is, Essays for David Hull. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 75–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grinnell, J. (1910), “The Methods and Uses of a Research Museum”, The Popular Science Monthly 11. 163–169.Google Scholar
Grinnell, J. (1924), “Geography and Evolution”, Ecology. 5: 225–229.10.2307/1929447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grinnell, J. (1943), Joseph Grinnell’s Philosophy of Nature. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, E. (1962), Collecting and Preparing Study Specimens of Vertebrates. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Herman, S. (1986), The Naturalist’s Field Journal, A Manual of Instruction Based on a System Established by Joseph Grinnell. Vermillion, South Dakota: Buteo Books.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. (1966), Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1980), “Individuality and Selection”, Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics. 11: 311 -332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1981), “;The Units of Evolution: A Metaphysical Essay”, in US Jensen and R. Harre” (eds.), The Philosophy of Evolution. Brighton: The Harvester Press, pp. 23–44.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1988), Science as a Process, An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leatherdale, W. (1974), The Role of Analogy, Model and Metaphor in Science. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Li, C. C. (1975), Path Analysis.—A Primer. Pacific Grove: Boxwood Press.Google Scholar
Maynard, Smith J., (1965), The Theory of Evolution. (2nd ed.), Middlesex: Penguin.Google Scholar
Merriam, C. H. (1894), “Laws of Temperature Control of the Geographic Distribution of Terrestrial Animals and Plants”, National Geographic Magazine. 6: 229–238.Google Scholar
Provine, W. (1986), Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Star, S. and Griesemer, J. (1989), “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations,” and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-1939”, Social Studies of Science. 19: 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tukey, J. (1954), “Causation, Regression and Path Analysis”, in Kempthorne, O. , Bancroft, T. , Gowen, J. and Lush, J. (eds.), Statistics and Mathematics in Biology. Ames: Iowa State College Press, pp. 35–66.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weismann, A. (1892), Das Keimplasma, Eine theorie der Vererbung. Jena: Gustav Fischer. English translation (1893) Parker, W. and Ronnfeldt, H. , The Germ-Plasm, A theory of heredity. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. B. (1896), The Cell in Development and Inheritance. London: Macmillan Co., (2nd Ed. 1900, 3rd Ed. 1925).Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1918), “On the Nature of Size Factors”, Genetic. 3: 367–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (1920), “The Relative Importance of Heredity and Environment in ‘Determining the Piebald Pattern of Guinea Pigs”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 6: 320–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (1921), “Correlation and Causation”, Journal of Agricultural Research. 20: 557–585.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1934), “The Method of Path Coefficients”, Annals of Mathematical \ Statistic. 5, 161–215.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1960), “Path Coefficients and Path Regressions: Alternative or Complementary Concepts?”, Biometric. 16:189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar