Abstract
This paper argues that the consensus physicalist antireductionism in the philosophy of biology cannot accommodate the research strategy or indeed the recent findings of molecular developmental biology. After describing Wolpert‘s programmatic claims on its behalf, and recent work by Gehring and others to identify the molecular determinants of development, the paper attempts to identify the relationship between evolutionary and developmental biology by reconciling two apparently conflicting accounts of bio-function – Wright‘s and Nagel‘s (as elaborated by Cummins). Finally, the paper seeks a way of defending the two central theses of physicalist antireductionism in the light of the research program of molecular developmental biology, by sharply reducing their metaphysical force.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cummins, R.: 1975, ‘Functional Analysis’, Journal of Philosophy 72, 741–765, reprinted in E. Sober (ed.), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology, second edition, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1993.
Gehring, W., Halder, G., Callaerts, P.: 1995, ‘Induction of Ectopic Eyes by Targeted Expression of the Eyeless Gene in Drosophila’, Science 267, 1788–1792.
Horder, T.J.: 1989, ‘Syllabus for an Embryological Synthesis’, in D.B. Wake and G. Roth (eds), Complex Organizational Functions: Integration and Evolution in Vertibrates, John Wiley, New York.
Kitcher, P.: 1984, ‘1953 and all that: A Tale of Two Sciences’, Philosophical Review 93, 335–373.
Kitcher, P., Sterelny, K., Waters, K.: 1990, ‘The Illusory Richness of Sober's Monism’, Journal of Philosophy 87, 158–161.
Kitcher, P.: 1993, The Advancement of Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Larence, P.: 1992, The Making of a Fly: The Genetics of Animal Design, Blackwell Scientific Publishers.
Lewontin, R. and Sober, E.: 1982, ‘Artifact, Cause and Genic Selection’, Philosophy of Science 47, 157–180.
Mayr, E.: 1982, The Growth of Biological Thought, Belnap Press, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1994.
Nagel, E,: 1977, ‘Teleology Revisited’, Journal of Philosophy 74, 261–301.
Nagel, E.: 1961, The Structure of Science, Harcourt Brace, New York, reprinted Hackett, Indianapolis, 1986.
Rosenberg, A.: 1984, The Structure of Biological Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rosenberg, A.: 1994, Instrumental Biology or the Disunity of Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Schaffner, K.: 1993, Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Sober, E.: 1993, The Philosophy of Biology, Westview, Boulder.
Morgan, T.H.: 1897, Wilhelm Roux Archives 5, 582.
Waters, K.: 1990: ‘Why the Antireductionist Consensus Wont Survive: The Case of Classical Mendelain Genetics’, PSA 1990, The philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing.
Wolpert, L.: 1969, ‘Positional Information and the Spatial Pattern of Cellular Formation’, Journal of Theoretical Biology 25, 1–47.
Wolpert, L.: 1994, ‘Do we understand development?’, Science 266, 571–572.
Wright, L.: 1976, Teleological Explanation, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rosenberg, A. Reductionism Redux: Computing the Embryo. Biology & Philosophy 12, 445–470 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006574719901
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006574719901