Biology and Philosophy

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 155–180 | Cite as

Must scientific diagrams be eliminable? The case of path analysis

  • James R. Griesemer
Article

Abstract

Scientists use a variety of modes of representation in their work, but philosophers have studied mainly sentences expressing propositions. I ask whether diagrams are mere conveniences in expressing propositions or whether they are a distinct, ineliminable mode of representation in scientific texts. The case of path analysis, a statistical method for quantitatively assessing the relative degree of causal determination of variation as expressed in a causal path diagram, is discussed. Path analysis presents a worst case for arguments against eliminability since path diagrams are usually presumed to be mathematically or logically “equivalent” in an important sense to sets of linear path equations. I argue that path diagrams are strongly generative, i.e., that they add analytical power to path analysis beyond what is supplied by linear equations, and therefore that they are ineliminable in a strong scientific sense.

Key words

Path analysis regression scientific diagrams Sewall Wright statistics in biology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cartwright, N.: 1983,How the Laws of Physics Lie, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Cartwright, N.: 1989,Nature's Capacities and Their Measurement, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Duhem, P.: 1954,The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  4. Fisher, R. A.: 1918, ‘The Correlation Between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance’,Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 52, 399–433.Google Scholar
  5. Goodman, N.: 1976,Languages of Art, Hackett Publishing Co., Indianapolis.Google Scholar
  6. Goodman, N., and C. Elgin: 1988,Reconceptions in Philosophy and Other Arts and Sciences, Hackett Publishing Co., Indianapolis.Google Scholar
  7. Griesemer, J., and W. Wimsatt: 1989, ‘Picturing Weismannism: A Case Study of Conceptual Evolution’, in M. Ruse (ed.),What the Philosophy of Biology Is, Essays for David Hull, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 75–137.Google Scholar
  8. Hacking, I.: 1983,Representing and Intervening, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  9. Hull, D.: 1976, ‘Informal Aspects of Theory Reduction’, in R. Cohen and A. Michalos (eds.),PSA 1974, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 653–670.Google Scholar
  10. Irzik, G.: 1986, ‘Causal Modeling and the Statistical Analysis of Causation’, in A. Fine and P. Machamer (eds.),PSA 1986, Vol. 1, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, pp. 12–23.Google Scholar
  11. Irzik, G., and E. Meyer: 1987, ‘Causal Modeling: New Directions for Statistical Explanations’,Philosophy of Science 54, 495–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson-Laird, P.: 1983,Mental Models, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  13. Larkin, J., and H. Simon: 1987, ‘Why a Diagram Is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words’,Cognitive Science 11, 65–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Latour, B.: 1987,Science in Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  15. Li, C.: 1975,Path Analysis—A Primer, Boxwood Press, Pacific Grove.Google Scholar
  16. Nersessian, N.: 1987, ‘A Cognitive-Historical Approach to Meaning in Scientific Theories’, in N. Nersessian (ed.),The Process of Science, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 161–177.Google Scholar
  17. Nersessian, N.: 1988, ‘Reasoning from Imagery and Analogy in Scientific Concept Formation’, in A. Fine and J. Leplin (eds.),PSA 1988, Vol. 1, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, pp. 41–47.Google Scholar
  18. Nickles, T.: 1989, ‘Truth or Consequences? Generative Versus Consequential Justification in Science’, in A. Fine and J. Leplin (eds.),PSA 1988, Vol. 2, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, pp. 393–405.Google Scholar
  19. Niles, H. E.: 1922, ‘Correlation, Causation, and Wright's Theory of “Path Coefficients”’,Genetics 7, 258–273.Google Scholar
  20. Provine, W.: 1986,Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  21. Schank, J., and W. Wimsatt: 1987, ‘Generative Entrenchment and Evolution’, in A. Fine and P. Machamer (eds.),PSA 1986, Vol. 2, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, pp. 33–60.Google Scholar
  22. Tukey, J.: 1954, ‘Causation, Regression and Path Analysis’, in O. Kempthorne, T. Bancroft, J. Gowen and J. Lush (eds.),Statistics and Mathematics in Biology, Iowa State College Press, Ames, pp. 35–66.Google Scholar
  23. Turner, M., and C. Stevens: 1959, ‘The Regression Analysis of Causal Paths’,Biometrics 15, 236–258.Google Scholar
  24. Wimsatt, W.: 1976, ‘Reductive Explanation: A Functional Account’, in R. Cohen and A. Michalos (eds.),PSA 1974, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 671–710.Google Scholar
  25. Wimsatt, W.: 1980, ‘Reductionistic Research Strategies and Their Biases in the Units of Selection Controversy’, in T. Nickles (ed.),Scientific Discovery: Case Studies, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 213–259.Google Scholar
  26. Wimsatt, W.: 1986, ‘Developmental Constraints, Generative Entrenchment, and the Innate-Acquired Distinction’, in W. Bechtel (ed.),Integrating Scientific Disciplines, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 185–208.Google Scholar
  27. Wittgenstein, L.: 1961,Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, D. Pears and B. McGuinness (transl.), Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  28. Woodward, J.: 1988, ‘Understanding Regression’, in A. Fine and J. Leplin (eds.),PSA 1988, Vol. 1, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, pp. 255–269.Google Scholar
  29. Wright, S.: 1918, ‘On the Nature of Size Factors’,Genetics 3, 367–374.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Wright, S.: 1921a, ‘Correlation and Causation’,Journal of Agricultural Research 20, 557–585.Google Scholar
  32. Wright, S.: 1921b, ‘Systems of Mating’,Genetics 6, 111–178.Google Scholar
  33. Wright, S.: 1923a, ‘Mendelian Analysis of the Pure Breeds of Livestock I. The Measurement of Inbreeding and Relationship’,Journal of Heredity 14, 339–348.Google Scholar
  34. Wright, S.: 1923b, ‘The Theory of Path Coefficients — A Reply to Niles' Criticism’,Genetics 8, 239–255.Google Scholar
  35. Wright, S.: 1934, ‘The Method of Path Coefficients’,Annals of Mathematical Statistics 5, 161–215.Google Scholar
  36. Wright, S.: 1954, ‘The Interpretation of Multivariate Systems’, in O. Kempthorne, T. Bancroft, J. Gowen and J. Lush (eds.),Statistics and Mathematics in Biology, Iowa State College Press, Ames, pp. 11–33.Google Scholar
  37. Wright, S.: 1960, ‘Path Coefficients and Path Regressions: Alternative or Complementary Concepts?’,Biometrics 16, 189–202.Google Scholar
  38. Wright, S.: 1968,Evolution and the Genetics of Populations, Vol. 1, Genetic and Biometric Foundations, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  39. Wright, S.: 1984, ‘Diverse Uses of Path Analysis’, in A. Chakravarti (ed.),Human Population Genetics, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • James R. Griesemer
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyProgram in History and Philosophy of ScienceDavisUSA
  2. 2.Center for Population BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations