Pablo Lorenzano

The purpose of this paper is to defend, contra Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini (F&PP), that the theory of natural selection (NS) is a perfectly bona fide empirical unified explanatory theory. F&PP claim there is nothing non-truistic, counterfactual-supporting, of an “adaptive” character and common to different explanations of trait evolution. In his debate with Fodor, and in other works, Sober defends NS but claims that, compared with classical mechanics (CM) and other standard theories, NS is peculiar in that its explanatory models are a priori (a trait shared with few other theories). We argue that NS provides perfectly bona fide adaptive explanations of phenotype evolution, unified by a common natural-selection guiding principle. First, we introduce the debate and reply to F&PP’s main argument against NS. Then, by reviewing different examples and analyzing Fisher’s model in detail, we show that NS explanations of phenotypic evolution share a General Natural Selection Principle. Third, by elaborating an analogy with CM, we argue against F&PP’s claim that such a principle would be a mere truism and thus explanatorily useless, and against Sober’s thesis that NS models/explanations have a priori components that are not present in CM and other common empirical theories. Irrespective of differences in other respects, the NS guiding principle has the same epistemic status as other guiding principles in other highly unified theories such as CM. We argue that only by pointing to the guiding principle-driven nature that it shares with CM and other highly unified theories, something no-one has done yet in this debate, one can definitively show that NS is not defective in F&PP’s sense: in the respects relevant to the debate, Natural Selection is as defective and as epistemically peculiar as Classical Mechanics and other never questioned theories.

The aim of this paper is to show, in the line suggested by Nickles (1980, 1981) and developed by Sintonen (1985, 1996), not just that the problem-solving approach and the theory approach are not incompatible, but also that the latter, in the version of the semantic conception of theories known as “structuralist view”, can be used to give precision to the problem-solving approach, by a more precise characterization of the theoretical context in which problems arise and, in this way, to their individuation and history, distinguishing two types of “problem change”: “change in a problem” and “change of a problem”. In order to do this, it will be presented a proposal that will be applied to the two first research programs in the field of genetics: the “mendelism” of Bateson and “classical genetics” of Morgan.

This article presents a reconstruction of the so-called classical, formal or Mendelian genetics, which is intended to be more complete and adequate than existing reconstructions. This reconstruction has been carried out with the instruments, duly modified and extended with respect to the case under consideration, of the structuralist conception of theories. The so-called Mendel’s Laws, as well as linkage genetics and gene mapping are formulated in a precise manner while the global structure of genetics is represented as a theory-net. These results are of methodological, philosophical and didactical relevance.

We present a reconstruction of so-called classical, formal or Mendelian genetics using a notation which we believe is more legible than that of earlier accounts, and lends itself easily to computer implementation, for instance in PROLOG. By drawing from, and emending, earlier work of Balzer and Dawe (1986,1997), the present account presents the three most important lines of development of classical genetics: the so-called Mendel's laws, linkage genetics and gene mapping, in the form of a theory-net. This shows that the set theoretic representation format used in the structuralist approach to the philosophy of science also applies to the domain of genetic theories. There construction is intended to lend more clarity to theme thodological, philosophical and didactical discussions of the foundations of genetics, and on the other hand to defend a formally, logically minded view of theories which seems to have become contested through the work of Feyerabend, Kuhn and Kitcher.

Scientific activity produces results of various types. In particular, science produces a special kind of knowledge or knowledges, assumed to be different from knowledge or common sense knowledge, from everyday experience and formulated in ordinary language; a more systematized knowledge, with greater range and accuracy, and intersubjectively controllable. To produce this kind of knowledge (or knowledge), we introduce new concepts, formulate hypotheses and laws and, ultimately, construct theories, being the result of a practice or specific activity, considering science as (perhaps), the supreme intellectual achievement of mankind. Thus, philosophical theorizing of science, or “philosophy of science”, is characterized by the development of interpretative conceptual frameworks of philosophical character, in order to understand science. Philosophy of science is, not just part of metascience, but also a part of philosophy, precisely that which is responsible for analyzing science.

Der orthodoxen Interpretation zufolge wird die Genetik als eine Disziplin dargestellt, deren Geschichte (von ihrem vermuteten Ursprung mit dem Werk Mendels an über die Werke der sogenannten «Wiederentdecker» de Vries, Correns und Tschermak und des englischen Mendelianers Bateson bis hin zur Arbeit Morgans) kontinuierlich, kumulativ und linear verlaufen sei. Im ersten Teil des Buches wird hingegen die Diskontinuität dieses Prozesses betont. Innerhalb der strukturalistischen Auffassung wissenschaftlicher Theorien wird die klassische Genetik im zweiten Teil in einer Weise rekonstruiert und formal analysiert, die den im ersten Teil erarbeiteten Ergebnissen gerecht wird.

Different conceptions of scientific theories, such as the state spaces approach of Bas van Fraassen, the phase spaces approach of Frederick Suppe, the set-theoretical approach of Patrick Suppes, and the structuralist view of Joseph Sneed et al. are usually put together into one big family. In addition, the definite article is normally used, and thus we speak of the semantic conception of theories and of its different approaches . However, in The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism , starting from certain remarks already made in “Theory Structure” , Current Research in Philosophy of Science, East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, 1979, pp. 317–338), Frederick Suppe excludes the structuralist view as well as other “European” versions from the semantic conception of theories. In this paper I will critically examine the reasons put forward by Suppe for this decision and, later, I will provide a general characterization of the semantic family and of the structuralist view of theories in such a way as to justify the inclusion of the structuralist view as a member of this family

Taking as starting point Kuhn’s analysis of science textbooks and its application to Sinnott and Dunn’s (1925), it will be discussed the problem of the existence of laws in biology. In particular, it will be showed, in accordance with the proposals of Darden (1991) and Schaffner (1980, 1986, 1993), the relevance of the exemplars, diagrammatically or graphically represented, in the way in which is carried out the teaching and learning process of classical genetics, inasmuch as the information contained in them, indispensable for the right development of that process, exceeds the information contained in the “laws” linguistically articulated and presented in the textbooks. However, it will be maintained that the information is implicit in the law that according to the structuralist concept of fundamental law and the reconstruction of genetics presented by Balzer & Dawe (1990), and later developed by Balzer & Lorenzano (1997) and Lorenzano (1995, 2000, 2002a) could be considered the fundamental law of classical genetics,the law of matching, clearly identified in this paper.

En las investigaciones sobre fisiología cardiovascular desarrolladas por William Harvey es posible distinguir entre dos teorías que responden a preguntas diferentes. La primera de ellas, que denominamos teoría del movimiento circular de la sangre, intenta dar una respuesta al problema sobre la cantidad de sangre que se mueve dentro del sistema. La segunda pretende dar cuenta de las causas de que la sangre se mueva y la denominamos teoría de las causas del movimiento de la sangre. En este trabajo, presentamos una reconstrucción estructuralista de la primera de éstas, y mostramos que posee todos los componentes considerados esenciales para cualquier teoría, de acuerdo con la concepción estructuralista de la ciencia.

Scientific activity produces results of various types. In particular, science produces a special kind of knowledge or knowledges, assumed to be different from knowledge or common sense knowledge, from everyday experience and formulated in ordinary language; a more systematized knowledge, with greater range and accuracy, and intersubjectively controllable. To produce this kind of knowledge (or knowledge), we introduce new concepts, formulate hypotheses and laws and, ultimately, construct theories, being the result of a practice or specific activity, considering science as (perhaps), the supreme intellectual achievement of mankind. Thus, philosophical theorizing of science, or “philosophy of science”, is characterized by the development of interpretative conceptual frameworks of philosophical character, in order to understand science. Philosophy of science is, not just part of metascience, but also a part of philosophy, precisely that which is responsible for analyzing science.

The present paper is framed within one of the predominant currents of contemporary philosophy of science, which is based in case studies, in order to construct a solid, non-speculative, metatheory. In this paper classical genetics is formally analized and reconstructed with the instruments, duly modified and extended in accordance with the considered case, of the structuralist view of theories, in such a way that that theory can be characterized as a refinement of an earlier introduced model of genetics, which determines the fundamental traits of any genetical model. Finally, from the reconstruction of classical genetics, the so-called “mendelism” is formally characterized trying to do justice, and to precise, some recent results in the historiography of genetics.

The aim of this article is to contribute to the discussion about the so-called “empirical claim” and “empirical basis” of theory testing. First, the proposals of reconceptualization of the standard notions of partial potential model, intended application and empirical claim of a theory made by Balzer (1982, 1988, 1997a, 1997b, 2006, Balzer, Lauth & Zoubek 1993) and Gähde (1996, 2002, 2008) will be first discussed. Then, the distinction between “global” and “local empirical basis” will be introduced, linking it with that of “global” and “local or particular empirical claim”. After that, following Balzer (1997a), along the lines of Suppes (1962), I will present a way in which what count as ‘data’ for a theory can be modeltheoretically represented and conceptualized. Finally, the proposed analysis will be exemplified with the case of classical genetics (reconstructed in Balzer & Lorenzano 2000, Lorenzano, 1995, 2000, 2002).

The aim of this paper is to further develop van Fraassen’s diagnosis, expanding a previous analysis of the fundamental law of classical genetics and the status of the so-called ‘Mendel’s laws’.6 According to this diagnosis the Hardy-Weinberg law: 1) cannot be considered as axiom (or fundamental law) for classical population genetics, since it is a law that describes an equilibrium that 2) holds only under certain special conditions, and 3) only determines a subclass of models, 4) whose generalized form (and fundamental law) being shading off into logical vacuity, and 5) more complex variants of the fundamental law (and of the Hardy-Weinberg law) can be “deduced” for more realistic assumptions. In order to achieve this, I will use notions of the structuralist view of theories, a version that is related to but different from that of van Fraassen’s. These are the notions of fundamental law, specialization, and special law. Having as a background a structuralist reconstruction of classical population genetics, I will show why the Hardy-Weinberg law should not be in fact considered the fundamental law of such a theory, but a special law (and not even a “terminal” specialization, i.e. a “non-terminal” specialization).

This paper consists of three sections. In the first one, some of the main developments in the philosophy of science through the xx century up to the present will be pointed out, and inserted them in the frame of some more general philosophical transformations, such as the so-called “linguistic turn” and “pragmatic turn”, respectively. In the second one, the established connection will be nuanced, from a revision of the work of a “classical” author such as Carnap. Finally, it will be intended a kind of “balance and future perspectives”.

Taking as starting point Kuhn’s analysis of science textbooks and its application to Sinnott and Dunn’s (1925), it will be discussed the problem of the existence of laws in biology. In particular, it will be showed, in accordance with the proposals of Darden (1991) and Schaffner (1980, 1986, 1993), the relevance of the exemplars, diagrammatically or graphically represented, in the way in which is carried out the teaching and learning process of classical genetics, inasmuch as the information contained in them, indispensable for the right development of that process, exceeds the information contained in the “laws” linguistically articulated and presented in the textbooks. However, it will be maintained that the information is implicit in the law that according to the structuralist concept of fundamental law and the reconstruction of genetics presented by Balzer & Dawe (1990), and later developed by Balzer & Lorenzano (1997) and Lorenzano (1995, 2000, 2002a) could be considered the fundamental law of classical genetics,the law of matching, clearly identified in this paper.

The epistemic status of Natural Selection has seemed intriguing to biologists and philosophers since the very beginning of the theory to our present times. One prominent contemporary example is Elliott Sober, who claims that NS, and some other theories in biology, and maybe in economics, are peculiar in including explanatory models/conditionals that are a priori in a sense in which explanatory models/conditionals in Classical Mechanics and most other standard theories are not. Sober’s argument focuses on some “would promote” sentences that according to him, play a central role in NS explanations and are both causal and a priori. Lange and Rosenberg criticize Sober arguing that, though there may be some unspecific a priori causal claims, there are not a priori causal claims that specify particular causal factors. Although we basically agree with Lange and Rosenberg’s criticism, we think it remains silent about a second important element in Sober’s dialectics, namely his claim that, contrary to what happens in mechanics, in NS explanatory conditionals are a priori, and that this is so in quite specific explanatory models. In this paper we criticize this second element of Sober’s argument by analyzing what we take to be the four possible interpretations of Sober’s claim, and argue that, terminological preferences aside, the possible senses in which explanatory models in NS can qualify, or include elements that can qualify, as a priori, also apply to CM and other standard, highly unified theories. We conclude that this second claim is unsound, or at least that more needs to be said in order to sustain that NS explanatory models are a priori in a sense in which CM models are not.