Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:07:47.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comments on Complexity and Experimentation in Biology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Richard M. Burian
Richard M. Burian*
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
*
†Center for the Study of Science in Society and Department of Philosophy, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0247.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Biology deals, notoriously, with complex systems. In discussing biological methodology, all three papers in this symposium honor the complexity of biological subject matter by preferring models and theories built to reflect the details of complex systems to models based on broad general principles or laws. Rheinberger's paper, the most programmatic of the three, provides a framework for the epistemology of discovery in complex systems. A fundamental problem is raised for Rheinberger's epistemology, namely, how to understand the referential continuity of the theoretical terms and concepts employed in typical case studies involving complex systems.

Type
Symposium: Complexity and Experimentation in Molecular Biology
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 64 , Issue S4: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1996 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers Dec., 1997 , 1997 , pp. S279 - S291
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1997

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

‡

I am grateful to Paul Siegel for discussions regarding the interactions between MHC genotypes and resistance to Marek's disease, to Anne McNabb for help with the testosterone example, and to the symposiasts and symposium audience for discussion.

References

Brandon, R. (1990), Adaptation and Environment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Burian, R. M. (1995), “Comments on Rheinberger's ‘From Experimental Systems to Cultures of Experimentation’”, in Wolters, G. and Lennox, J., in collaboration with McLaughlin, P. (eds.), Concepts, Theories, and Rationality in the Biological Sciences: The Second Pittsburgh-Konstanz Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science. Konstanz and Pittsburgh: UKV-Universitätsverlag Konstanz and University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 123–136.Google Scholar
Burian, R. M. and Richardson, R. C. (1992), “Form and Order in Evolutionary Biology: Stuart Kauffman's Transformation of Theoretical Biology”, in Fine, A., Forbes, M., and Wessels, L. (eds.), PSA 1990, v. 2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 267–287.Google Scholar
Elbrecht, A. and Smith, R. G. (1992), “Aromatase Enzyme Activity and Sex Determination in Chickens”, Science 255: 467–470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hadley, M. E. (1996), Endocrinology, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hartmann, W. (1989), “Evaluation of ‘Major Genes’ Affecting Disease Resistance in Poultry in Respect to their Potential for Commercial Breeding”, in Bhogal, B. S. and Koch, G. (eds.), Recent Advances in Avian Immunology Research, Progress in Clinical and Biological Research, v. 307. New York: Alan R. Liss, pp. 221–231.Google Scholar
Jacob, F. (1982), “Evolutionary Tinkering”, in F.Jacob, The Possible and the Actual. Seattle: University of Washington Press, pp. 25–46.Google Scholar
Kauffman, S. (1995), At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, A., Dunnington, E. A., Briles, W. E., Briles, R. W., and Siegel, P. B. (1989), “Marek's Disease and Major Histocompatibility Complex Haplotypes in Chickens Selected for High or Low Antibody Response”, Animal Genetics 20: 407–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nüsslein-Volhard, C. (1991), “Determination of the Embryonic Axes of Drosophila”, Development (Supplement) 1: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nüsslein-Volhard, C. and Wieschaus, E. (1980), “Mutations Affecting Segment Number and Polarity in Drosophila” Nature 287: 795–801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Putnam, H. (1973), “Explanation and Reference”, in Pearce, G. and Maynard, P. (eds.), Conceptual Change. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rheinberger, H.-J. (1995a), “From Experimental Systems to Cultures of Experimentation”, in Wolters, G. and Lennox, J., in collaboration with McLaughlin, P. (eds.), Concepts, Theories, and Rationality in the Biological Sciences: The Second Pittsburgh-Konstanz Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science. Konstanz and Pittsburgh: UKV-Universitätsverlag Konstanz and University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 107–122.Google Scholar
Rheinberger, H.-J. (1995b), “From Microsomes to Ribosomes: ‘Strategies’ of ‘Representation‘”, Journal of the History of Biology 28: 49–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rheinberger, H.-J. (1997), Toward a History of Epistemic Things. Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Schank, J. C. and Wimsatt, W. C. (1987), “Generative Entrenchment and Evolution”, in Fine, A. and Machamer, P. (eds.), PSA 1986, v. 2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 33–60.Google Scholar
Schlinger, B. A. and Arnold, A. P. (1992), “Plasma Sex Steroids and Tissue Aromatization in Hatchling Zebra Finches: Implications for the Sexual Differentiation of Singing Behavior”, Endocrinology 130: 289–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vance, R. (1996), “Heroic Antireductionism and Genetics: A Tale of One Science”, Philosophy of Science, 63 (Proceedings): S36–S45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (1986), “Developmental Constraints, Generative Entrenchment, and the Innate-Acquired Distinction”, in Bechtel, W. (ed.), Integrating Scientific Disciplines. Dordrecht: Nijhoff, pp. 185–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar