Causal specificity and the instructive–permissive distinction
- 371 Downloads
I use some recent formal work on measuring causation to explore a suggestion by James Woodward: that the notion of causal specificity can clarify the distinction in biology between permissive and instructive causes. This distinction arises when a complex developmental process, such as the formation of an entire body part, can be triggered by a simple switch, such as the presence of particular protein. In such cases, the protein is said to merely induce or "permit" the developmental process, whilst the causal "instructions" for guiding that process are already prefigured within the cells. I construct a novel model that expresses in a simple and tractable way the relevant causal structure of biological development and then use a measure of causal specificity to analyse the model. I show that the permissive-instructive distinction cannot be captured by simply contrasting the specificity of two causes as Woodward proposes, and instead introduce an alternative, hierarchical approach to analysing the interaction between two causes. The resulting analysis highlights the importance of focusing on gene regulation, rather than just the coding regions, when analysing the distinctive causal power of genes.
KeywordsCausation Specificity Instructive Permissive Information Waddington
I am indebted to the Theory and Method in Biosciences group at the University of Sydney, in particular to Stefan Gawronski, Paul Griffiths, Arnaud Pocheville, and Karola Stotz, and for their feedback and assistance. Funding was provided by Swansea University Templeton World Charity Foundation.
- Bulmer MG (2003) Francis Galton: pioneer of heredity and biometry. JHU Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
- Holtzer H (1968) Induction of chondrogenesis. A concept in terms of mechanisms. In: Glieschmajer R, Billingham R (eds) Epithelial-mesenchymal interactions. William and Wilkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
- Kirschner MW, Gerhart JC (2006) The plausibility of life: resolving Darwin’s dilemma. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
- Oyama S (2003) Terms in tension: what do you do when all the good words are taken? In: Oyama S, Gray RD, Griffiths PE (eds) Cycles of contingency: developmental systems and evolution, reprint edn. A Bradford Book, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Oyama S, Gray RD, Griffiths PE (eds) (2003) Cycles of contingency: developmental systems and evolution, reprint edn. A Bradford Book, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Peter I, Davidson EH (2015) Genomic control process: development and evolution, 1st edn. Academic Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
- Pocheville A, Griffiths PE, Stotz K (2017) Comparing causes: an information-theoretic approach to specificity, proportionality and stability. In: Proceedings of the 15th congress of logic, methodology and philosophy of science. College, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Waters CK (2007) Causes that make a difference. J Philos 104:551–579Google Scholar
- Weber M (2013) Causal selection versus causal parity in biology: relevant counterfactuals and biologically normal interventions. In: What if? On the meaning, relevance and epistemology of counterfactual claims and thought experiments. University of Konstanz, Konstanz, pp 1–44Google Scholar
- Weber M (2016) Discussion note: which kind of causal specificity matters biologically. Philos Sci. doi: 10.1086/692148
- Wilkins AS (2002) The evolution of developmental pathways. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar