Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-k7rjm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-19T10:14:25.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Practical Know-How Contextualizes Theoretical Knowledge: Exporting Causal Knowledge from Laboratory to Nature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

C. Kenneth Waters
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Leading philosophical accounts presume that Thomas H. Morgan's transmission theory can be understood independently of experimental practices. Experimentation is taken to be relevant to confirming, rather than interpreting, the transmission theory. But the construction of Morgan's theory went hand in hand with the reconstruction of the chief experimental object, the model organism Drosophila melanogaster. This raises an important question: when a theory is constructed to account for phenomena in carefully controlled laboratory settings, what knowledge, if any, indicates the theory's relevance to phenomena outside highly controlled settings? The answer, I argue, is found within the procedural knowledge embedded within laboratory practice.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

‡

I would like to thank the audience at the 2006 meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association for helpful comments.

References

Ankeny, Rachel A. (2001), “Model Organisms as Models: Understanding the ‘Lingua Franca’ of the Human Genome Project”, Model Organisms as Models: Understanding the ‘Lingua Franca’ of the Human Genome Project 68 (Proceedings): S251–S261.Google Scholar
Beatty, John (1981), “What's Wrong with the Received View of Evolutionary Theory?”, in Asquith, P. D. and Giere, R. N. (eds.), PSA 1980: Proceedings of the 1980 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 397–426.Google Scholar
Bolker, Jessica A. (1995), “Model Systems in Developmental Biology”, Model Systems in Developmental Biology 17 (5): 451–455..Google ScholarPubMed
Bolker, Jessica A., and Raff, Rudolf A. (1997), “Beyond Worms, Flies, and Mice: It's Time to Widen the Scope of Developmental Biology”, Beyond Worms, Flies, and Mice: It's Time to Widen the Scope of Developmental Biology 9:35–39.Google Scholar
Bridges, Calvin B., and Brehme, Katherine S. (1944), The Mutants of Drosophila Melanogaster. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution.Google Scholar
Bridges, Calvin B., and Morgan, Thomas H. (1919), “The Second-Chromosome Group of Mutant Characters”, in Morgan, Thomas H., Bridges, Calvin B., and Sturtevant, Alfred H. (eds.), Contributions to the Genetics of Drosophila Melanogaster, Carnegie Institution Publication no. 278. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 123–304.Google Scholar
Bridges, Calvin B., and Morgan, Thomas H. (1923), The Third-Chromosome Group of Mutant Characters. Carnegie Institution of Washington publication no. 327. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy (1999), The Dappled World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy, Shomar, Towfic, and Suárez, Mauricio (1995), “The Tool Box of Science: Tools for the Building of Models with a Superconductivity Example”, The Tool Box of Science: Tools for the Building of Models with a Superconductivity Example 44:137–149.Google Scholar
Fields, Stanley, and Johnston, Mark (2005), “Whither Model Organism Research?”, Whither Model Organism Research? 307 (5717): 1885–1886..Google ScholarPubMed
Giere, Ronald N. (1988), Explaining Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip S. (1984), “1953 and All That: A Tale of Two Sciences”, 1953 and All That: A Tale of Two Sciences 43:335–371.Google Scholar
Kohler, Robert (1994), Lords of the Fly: Drosophila Genetics and the Experimental Life. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David (1973), “Causation”, Causation 70:556–567.Google Scholar
Morgan, Thomas H. (1926), The Theory of the Gene. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, Thomas H., and Bridges, Calvin B. (1916), Sex-Linked Inheritance in Drosophila. Carnegie Institution of Washington publication no. 237. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington.Google Scholar
Morgan, Thomas H., Bridges, Calvin B., and Sturtevant, Alfred H., eds. (1919), Contributions to the Genetics of Drosophila melanogastor. Carnegie Institution of Washington publication no. 278. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington.Google Scholar
Muller, Hermann J. (1918), “Genetic Variability, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors”, Genetic Variability, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors 3:422–499.Google Scholar
Rader, Karen A. (2004), Making Mice: Standardizing Animals for American Biomedical Research, 1900–1955. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, Kenneth F. (1998), “Model Organisms and Behavioral Genetics: A Rejoinder”, Model Organisms and Behavioral Genetics: A Rejoinder 65:276–288.Google Scholar
Sturtevant, Alfred H., and Beadle, George W. (1939), An Introduction to Genetics. Philadelphia: Saunders.Google Scholar
Sturtevant, Alfred H., and Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1931), Contributions to the Genetics of Certain Chromosome Anomalies in Drosophila melanogaster. Carnegie Institution of Washington publication no. 421. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington.Google Scholar
Waters, C. Kenneth (2004), “What Was Classical Genetics?”, What Was Classical Genetics? 35:783–809.Google ScholarPubMed
Waters, C. Kenneth (2007), “Causes That Make a Difference”, Causes That Make a Difference 104:557–579.Google Scholar
Woodward, James (2003), Making Things Happen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar