Experimental Discovery, Data Models, and Mechanisms in Biology: An Example from Mendel’s Work

Chapter
Part of the History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences book series (HPTL, volume 3)

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to argue that there are experimental discoveries that could have been made independent of theories. I will explore the questions of whether there are experimental discoveries and, if so, what counts as an experimental discovery and what the relation is between experimental discovery and the discovery of a mechanism. Gregor Mendel’s work on peas will be taken as the main example. Frederick Griffith’s experiment with Pneumococcus bacteria in mice and Hans Driesch’s experiment on sea urchin embryos will be discussed as foils. I conclude that an experimental discovery can be identified and recognized by the following conditions: (1) An experimenter must propose data models to reveal significant phenomena, (2) no established theories can predict and explain the phenomena, and (3) the experimenter must envisage searching for underlying mechanisms for the phenomena, whether or not he or she proposes correct mechanistic explanations. I also argue that experimental discovery usually precedes and is a prerequisite for the discovery of mechanism. It plays a role in three ways: organizing data into significant phenomena, producing the need and motivation to discover mechanisms, and constraining the direction for construction of theoretical hypotheses.

Keywords

Data Model Experimental Discovery Scientific Discovery Conditional Specification Classical Genetic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This chapter is revised from the paper presented at Taiwan Conference on the Philosophy of Biology and Economics at National Tsing Hua University in Hsinchu, March 24–25, 2011. I thank the anonymous referees and editors-in-chief for their valuable suggestions and comments on an earlier version of this chapter. I also thank the participants in the conference, Jean-Sebástien Bolduc, Marcel Boumans, Lindley Darden, Alexandre Guay, Till Grüne-Yanoff, Roberta Millstein, James Myers, and David Teira, for their stimulative questions to my conference paper. I especially express my gratitude to Lindley Darden, Roberta Millstein, Szu-Ting Chen, and Hsiang-Ke Chao for their encouragement and suggestions.

References

  1. Bechtel, William. 2006. Discovering cell mechanisms: The creation of modern cell biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bechtel, William, and Adele Abrahamsen. 2005. Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36: 421–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bechtel, William, and Robert C. Richardson. 1993. Discovering complexity: Decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bogen, Jim. 2010. Noise in the world. Philosophy of Science 77(5): 778–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bogen, Jim, and James Woodward. 1988. Saving the phenomena. Philosophical Review 97: 303–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowler, Peter J. 1989. The Mendelian revolution: The emergence of hereditarian concepts in modern science and society. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brading, Katherine. 2010. Autonomous patterns and scientific realism. Philosophy of Science 77(5): 827–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooker, Robert J. 2009. Genetics: Analysis & principles. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Google Scholar
  9. Carlson, Elof A. 2004. Mendel’s legacy: The origin of classical genetics. Cold Springer Harbor: Cold Springer Harbor Laboratory Press.Google Scholar
  10. Corcos, Alain, and Floyd Monaghan. 1993. Gregor Mendel’s experiments on plants hybrids: A guided study. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Craver, Carl F. 2001. Role functions, mechanisms, and hierarchy. Philosophy of Science 68: 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Craver, Carl F. 2002. Interlevel experiments, multilevel mechanisms in the neuroscience of memory. Philosophy of Science 69(Suppl.): S83–S97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Craver, Carl F. 2005. Beyond reduction: Mechanisms, multifield integration, and the unity of neuroscience. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36: 373–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Craver, Carl F., and Lindley Darden. 2001. Discovering mechanisms in neurobiology: The case of spatial memory. In Theory and method in the neuroscience, ed. Peter K. Machamer, R. Grush, and Peter McLaughlin, 112–137. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  15. Darden, Lindley. 1991. Theory change in science: Strategies from Mendelian genetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Darden, Lindley. 2002. Strategies for discovering mechanisms: Schema instantiation, modular subassembly, forward/backward chaining. Philosophy of Science 69(Suppl.): S354–S365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Darden, Lindley. 2005. Relation among fields: Mendelian, cytological and molecular mechanisms. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36: 349–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Darden, Lindley. 2006. Reasoning in biological discoveries: Essays on mechanism, interfield relations, and anomaly resolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Galison, Peter. 1998. Image and logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Giere, Ronald. 1999. Using model to represent reality. In Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery, ed. Lorenzo Magnani, Nancy J. Nersessian, and Paul Thagard, 41–58. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giere, Ronald. 2010. An agent-based conception of models and scientific representation. Syntheses 172(2): 269–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilbert, Scott F. 2010. Developmental biology, 9th ed. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  23. Glennan, Stuart S. 1996. Mechanisms and the nature of causation. Erkenntnis 44: 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glennan, Stuart S. 2002. Rethinking mechanistic explanation. Philosophy of Science 69(Suppl.): S342–S353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Glennan, Stuart S. 2005. Modeling mechanisms. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36: 443–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gooding, David. 1990. Experiment and the making of meaning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hacking, Ian. 1983. Representing and intervening. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
  28. Harris, Todd. 2003. Data models and the acquisition and manipulation of data. Philosophy of Science 70(5): 1508–1517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hartl, Daniel L., and Elizabeth W. Jones. 2005. Genetics: Analysis of genes and genomes. Boston: Jones and Bartlett publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  30. Hartl, Daniel L., and Vitezslav Orel. 1992. What did Gregor Mendel think he discovered? Genetics 131: 245–253.Google Scholar
  31. Judson, Horace F. 1996. The eighth day of creation: Makers of the revolution in biology, 25th anniversary ed. New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kleiner, Scott A. 1993. The logic of discovery: A theory of the rationality of scientific research. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  33. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Machamer, Peter K., L. Darden, and C.F. Craver. 2000. Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science 67(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Magnani, Lorenzo, N.J. Nersessian, and P. Thagard (eds.). 1999. Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Magner, Lois N. 2002. A history of the life science. Revised and expanded, 3rd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.Google Scholar
  37. Mayo, Deborah G. 1996. Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mayr, Ernest. 1982. The growth of biological thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. McAllister, James M. 2010. The ontology of patterns in empirical data. Philosophy of Science 77(5): 804–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mendel, Gregor. 1966. Experiments on plant hybrids. In The origin of genetics: A Mendel source book, ed. C. Stern and E. Sherwood, 1–48. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  41. Morange, Michel. 1998. A history of molecular biology. Trans. Matthew Cobb. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Nickles, Thomas. 1980a. Introductory essay: Scientific discovery and the future of philosophy of science. In Scientific discovery, logic and rationality, ed. T. Nickles, 1–59. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nickles, Thomas (ed.). 1980b. Scientific discovery, logic and rationality. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  44. Nickles, Thomas (ed.). 1980c. Scientific discovery: Case studies. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  45. Nickles, Thomas. 1987. Methodology, heuristics, and rationality. In Rational changes in science, ed. J.C. Pitt and M. Pera, 103–132. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Olby, Robert. 1985. Origins of Mendelism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. Schaffner, Kenneth F. 1974. Logic of discovery and justification in regulatory genetics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 4(4): 349–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schaffner, Kenneth F. 1993. Discovery and explanation in biology and medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  49. Suppes, Patrick. 1962. Models of data. In Logic, methodology and philosophy of science, ed. Ernest Nagel, Patrick Suppes, and Alfred Tarski, 252–261. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Teller, Paul. 2010. “Saving the phenomena” today. Philosophy of Science 77(5): 815–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Villee, Claude A., et al. (eds.). 1989. Biology. Philadelphia: Saunders College Publishing.Google Scholar
  52. Waters, C. Kenneth. 2004. What was classical genetics? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 35: 783–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Watson, James D., et al. 2004. Molecular biology of the gene. New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.Google Scholar
  54. Woodward, James. 2010. Data, phenomena, signal, and noise. Philosophy of Science 77(5): 792–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyNational Chung Cheng UniversityChia-YiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations