Acta Biotheoretica

, Volume 57, Issue 1–2, pp 51–75 | Cite as

Typology Reconfigured: From the Metaphysics of Essentialism to the Epistemology of Representation

Regular Article

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to encourage a reconfiguration of the discussion about typology in biology away from the metaphysics of essentialism and toward the epistemology of classifying natural phenomena for the purposes of empirical inquiry. First, I briefly review arguments concerning ‘typological thinking’, essentialism, species, and natural kinds, highlighting their predominantly metaphysical nature. Second, I use a distinction between the aims, strategies, and tactics of science to suggest how a shift from metaphysics to epistemology might be accomplished. Typological thinking can be understood as a scientific tactic that involves representing natural phenomena using idealizations and approximations, which facilitates explanation, investigation, and theorizing via abstraction and generalization. Third, a variety of typologies from different areas of biology are introduced to emphasize the diversity of this representational reasoning. One particular example is used to examine how there can be epistemological conflict between typology and evolutionary analysis. This demonstrates that alternative strategies of typological thinking arise due to the divergent explanatory goals of researchers working in different disciplines with disparate methodologies. I conclude with several research questions that emerge from an epistemological reconfiguration of typology.

Keywords

Classification Epistemology Essentialism Methodology Natural kinds Realism Typology 

References

  1. Alberch P (1985) Problems with the interpretation of developmental sequences. Syst Zool 34:46–58. doi:10.2307/2413344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander RM (2003) Principles of animal locomotion. Princeton University Press, Princeton and OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Amundson R (1998) Typology reconsidered: two doctrines on the history of evolutionary biology. Biol Philos 13:153–177. doi:10.1023/A:1006599002775 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amundson R (2001) Adaptation and development: on the lack of common ground. In: Orzack SH, Sober E (eds) Adaptationism and optimality. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 303–334Google Scholar
  5. Amundson R (2005) The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought: structure and synthesis. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Biewener AA (2003) Animal locomotion. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyd R (1991) Realism, anti-foundationalism and the enthusiasm for natural kinds. Philos Stud 61:127–148. doi:10.1007/BF00385837 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyd R (1999) Homeostasis, species and higher taxa. In: Wilson RA (ed) Species: new interdisciplinary essays. MIT, Cambridge, pp 141–185Google Scholar
  9. Brandon R (1990) Adaptation and environment. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  10. Brigandt I (2007) Typology now: homology and developmental constraints explain evolvability. Biol Philos 22:709–725. doi:10.1007/s10539-007-9089-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Budd GE (2001) Why are arthropods segmented? Evol Dev 3:332–342. doi:10.1046/j.1525-142X.2001.01041.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cartwright N (1989) Nature’s capacities and their measurement. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Cartwright N (1999) The dappled world: a study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Chung C (2003) On the origin of the typological/population distinction in Ernst Mayr’s changing views of species, 1942–1959. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 34:277–296. doi:10.1016/S1369-8486(03)00026-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Collins JP, Gilbert SF, Laubichler MD, Müller GB (2007) Modeling in EvoDevo: how to integrate development, evolution, and ecology. In: Laubichler MD, Müller GB (eds) Modeling biology. MIT, Cambridge, pp 355–378Google Scholar
  16. Denton MJ, Marshall CJ, Legge M (2002) The protein folds as platonic forms: new support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law. J Theor Biol 219:325–342. doi:10.1006/jtbi.2002.3128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dobzhansky T (1973) Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Am Biol Teach 35:125–129Google Scholar
  18. Dupré J (1993) The disorder of things: metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  19. Dupré J (2001) In defence of classification. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 32:203–219. doi:10.1016/S1369-8486(01)00003-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dupré J (2002) Humans and other animals. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Ellis B (2001) Scientific essentialism. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Elwick J (2007) Styles of reasoning in early to mid-Victorian life research: analysis:synthesis and palaetiology. J Hist Biol 40:35–69. doi:10.1007/s10739-006-9106-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Endler JA (1986) Natural selection in the wild. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  24. Endler JA (1992) Natural selection: current usages. In: Keller EF, Lloyd EA (eds) Keywords in evolutionary biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 220–224Google Scholar
  25. Ereshefsky M Natural kinds in biology. In Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  26. Farber PF (1976) The type-concept in zoology during the first half of the nineteenth century. J Hist Biol 9:93–119. doi:10.1007/BF00129174 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Garel J-R (1999) Folding of large proteins: multidomain and multisubunit proteins. In: Creighton TE (ed) Protein folding. WH Freeman and Co, New York, pp 405–454Google Scholar
  28. Ghiselin MT (1997) Metaphysics and the origin of species. SUNY, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  29. Giere R, Bickle J, Maudlin RF (2006) Understanding scientific reasoning, 5th edn. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  30. Gillett C (2002) The dimensions of realization: a critique of the standard view. Analysis 62:316–323. doi:10.1111/1467-8284.00377 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gillett C (2003) The metaphysics of realization, multiple realizability, and the special sciences. J Philos 100:591–603Google Scholar
  32. Grewal SIS, Elgin SCR (2007) Transcription and RNA interference in the formation of heterochromatin. Nature 447:399–406. doi:10.1038/nature05914 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Griesemer JR (1996) Periodization and models in historical biology. In: Ghiselin MT, Pinna G (eds) New perspectives on the history of life. California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, pp 19–30Google Scholar
  34. Griffiths PE (1999) Squaring the circle: natural kinds with historical essences. In: Wilson RA (ed) Species: new interdisciplinary essays. MIT, Cambridge, pp 209–228Google Scholar
  35. Hacking I (1991) A tradition of natural kinds. Philos Stud 61:109–126. doi:10.1007/BF00385836 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hamburger V, Hamilton HL (1951) A series of normal stages in the development of the chick embryo. J Morphol 88:49–92. doi:10.1002/jmor.1050880104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Harré R (1970) The principles of scientific thinking. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Hempel CG (1952) Fundamentals of concept formation in empirical science. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  39. Hempel CG (1965 [1952]) Typological methods in the natural and social sciences. In: Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. The Free Press, New York, pp 155–171Google Scholar
  40. Hempel CG (1965 [1961]) Fundamentals of taxonomy. In: Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. The Free Press, New York, pp 137–154Google Scholar
  41. Hopwood N (2005) Visual standards and disciplinary change: normal plates, tables and stages in embryology. Hist Sci 43:239–303Google Scholar
  42. Hopwood N (2007) A history of normal plates, tables and stages in vertebrate embryology. Int J Dev Biol 51:1–26. doi:10.1387/ijdb.062189nh CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hull DL (1965) The effects of essentialism on taxonomy: 2, 000 years of stasis. Br J Philos Sci 15/16:314–326 311–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hull DL (1978) A matter of individuality. Philos Sci 45:335–360. doi:10.1086/288811 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hüttemann A (2001) Idealizations in physics. In: Ferrari M, Stamatescu I-O (eds) Symbol and physical knowledge. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 177–192Google Scholar
  46. Jenner RA (2006) Unburdening Evo-devo: ancestral attractions, model organisms, and basal baloney. Dev Genes Evol 216:385–394. doi:10.1007/s00427-006-0084-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jones MR (2005) Idealization and abstraction: a framework. In: Jones MR, Cartwright N (eds) Idealization XII: correcting the model. Idealization and abstraction in the sciences (Poznan studies in the philosophy of the sciences and the humanities, vol. 86). Rodopi, Amsterdam, New York, pp 173–217Google Scholar
  48. Kauffman SA (1971) Articulation of parts explanations in biology and the rational search for them. In: Buck RC, Cohen RS (eds) PSA 1970. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, pp 257–272Google Scholar
  49. LaPorte J (2004) Natural kinds and conceptual change. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Lennox JG (2001) History and philosophy of science: the phylogenetic approach. Hist Cienc Saude Manguinhos VIII:655–669Google Scholar
  51. Love AC (2003) Evolutionary morphology, innovation, and the synthesis of evolutionary and developmental biology. Biol Philos 18:309–345. doi:10.1023/A:1023940220348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Love AC (2006) Evolutionary morphology and Evo-devo: hierarchy and novelty. Theory Biosci 124:317–333. doi:10.1016/j.thbio.2005.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Love AC (2007) Morphological and paleontological perspectives for a history of Evo-devo. In: Laubichler MD, Maienschein J (eds) From embryology to Evo-devo: a history of developmental evolution. MIT, Cambridge, MA, pp 267–307Google Scholar
  54. Love AC Explaining evolutionary innovations and novelties: criteria of explanatory adequacy and epistemological prerequisites. Philos Sci (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  55. Luisi P-L, Thomas RM (1990) The pictographic molecular paradigm: pictorial communication in the chemical and biological sciences. Naturewissenschaften 77:67–74. doi:10.1007/BF01131776 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mayr E (1959) Darwin and the evolutionary theory in biology. In: Meggers BJ (ed) Evolution and anthropology: a centennial appraisal. Theo Gaus’ Sons, Inc, Brooklyn, NY, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  57. Mayr E (1976 [1955]) Karl Jordan’s contribution to current concepts in systematics and evolution. In: Evolution and the diversity of life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 297–306Google Scholar
  58. Mayr E (1980) Prologue: some thoughts on the history of the evolutionary synthesis. In: Mayr E, Provine WB (eds) The evolutionary synthesis: perspectives on the unification of biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–48Google Scholar
  59. Minelli A (2003) The development of animal form: ontogeny, morphology, and evolution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  60. Minelli A, Brena C, Deflorian G, Maruzzo D, Fusco G (2006) From embryo to adult-beyond the conventional periodization of arthropod development. Dev Gen Evol 216:373–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mitchell SD (2000) Dimensions of scientific law. Philos Sci 67:242–265. doi:10.1086/392774 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Morrison M (2005) Approximating the real: the role of idealizations in physical theory. In: Jones MR, Cartwright N (eds) Idealization XII: correcting the model. Idealization and abstraction in the sciences (Poznan studies in the philosophy of the sciences and the humanities, vol. 86). Rodopi, Amsterdam, New York, pp 145–172Google Scholar
  63. Nersessian NJ (2005) Abstraction via generic modeling in concept formation in science. In: Jones MR, Cartwright N (eds) Idealization XII: correcting the model. Idealization and abstraction in the sciences (Poznan studies in the philosophy of the sciences and the humanities, vol. 86). Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp 117–143Google Scholar
  64. Nieuwkoop PD, Faber J (eds) (1956) Normal table of Xenopus laevis (Daudin): a systematical and chronological survey of the development from fertilized egg till the end of metamorphosis. North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  65. Olson EC (1960) Morphology, paleontology, and evolution. In: Tax S (ed) Evolution after Darwin. Volume 1: the evolution of life, its origin, history and future. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 523–545Google Scholar
  66. Polly PD (2007) Limbs in mammalian evolution. In: Hall BK (ed) Fins into limbs: evolution, development, and transformation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 245–268Google Scholar
  67. Psillos S (1999) Scientific realism: how science tracks truth. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  68. Richardson MK, Minelli A, Coates MI (1999) Some problems with typological thinking in evolution and development. Evol Dev 1:5–7. doi:10.1046/j.1525-142x.1999.00112.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rieppel O (2006) ‘Type’ in morphology and phylogeny. J Morphol 267:528–535. doi:10.1002/jmor.10424 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rieppel O, Kearney M (2007) The poverty of taxonomic characters. Biol Philos 22:95–113. doi:10.1007/s10539-006-9024-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sarkar S (1998) Genetics and reductionism. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  72. Schuster P (2005) “Less is more” and the art of modeling complex phenomena. Complexity 11:11–13. doi:10.1002/cplx.20107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Shubin NH, Alberch P (1986) A morphogenetic approach to the origin and basic organization of the tetrapod limb. In: Hecht MK, Wallace B, Prance GT (eds) Evolutionary biology. Plenum Press, New York, pp 319–387Google Scholar
  74. Sober E (1980) Evolution, population thinking and essentialism. Philos Sci 47:350–383. doi:10.1086/288942 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sober E (2000) Philosophy of biology, 2nd edn. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  76. Stadler BMR, Stadler PF, Wagner GP, Fontana W (2001) The topology of the possible: formal spaces underlying patterns of evolutionary change. J Theor Biol 213:241–274. doi:10.1006/jtbi.2001.2423 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stamos DN (2005) Pre-Darwinian taxonomy and essentialism—a reply to Mary Winsor. Biol Philos 20:79–96. doi:10.1007/s10539-005-0401-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Steup M (2008) Epistemology. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition). <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/epistemology/>
  79. van Fraassen B (1980) The scientific image. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. van Fraassen B (2006) Weyl’s paradox: the distance between structure and perspective. In: Berg-Hildebrand A, Suhm C (eds) Bas C. van Fraassen: the fortunes of empiricism. Ontos Verlag, Frankfurt, pp 13–34Google Scholar
  81. van Inwagen P (2007) Metaphysics. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2007 Edition). <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2007/entries/metaphysics/>
  82. Wagner GP, Laubichler MD (2001) Character identification: the role of the organism. In: Wagner GP (ed) The character concept in evolutionary biology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 141–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Walsh D (2006) Evolutionary essentialism. Br J Philos Sci 57:425–448. doi:10.1093/bjps/axl001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Waters CK (2000) Molecules made biological. Rev Int Philos 4:539–564Google Scholar
  85. Weisberg M Three kinds of idealization. J Philos (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  86. Wilson RA (1999) Realism, essence, and kind: resuscitating species essentialism? In: Wilson RA (ed) Species: new interdisciplinary essays. MIT, Cambridge, MA, pp 187–207Google Scholar
  87. Wilson RA (2005) Genes and the agents of life: the individual in the fragile sciences (biology). Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  88. Wimsatt WC (1974) Complexity and organization. In: Schaffner KF, Cohen RS (eds) PSA 1972. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, pp 67–86Google Scholar
  89. Wimsatt WC (1980) Reductionistic research strategies and their biases in the units of selection controversy. In: Nickles T (ed) Scientific discovery: case studies. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, pp 213–259Google Scholar
  90. Winsor MP (2003) Non-essentialist methods in pre-Darwinian taxonomy. Biol Philos 18:387–400. doi:10.1023/A:1024139523966 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Winsor MP (2006) The creation of the essentialism story: an exercise in metahistory. Hist Philos Life Sci 28:149–174Google Scholar
  92. Winther RG (2006) Parts and theories in compositional biology. Biol Philos 21:471–499. doi:10.1007/s10539-005-9002-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Woodward J (2003) Making things happen: a theory of causal explanation. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  94. Wray GA (1996) Parallel evolution of nonfeeding larvae in echinoids. Syst Biol 45:308–322. doi:10.2307/2413566 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations