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

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.

[1]  K. Korb Explaining Science* , 1991, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[2]  P Kitcher,et al.  1953 and all that: a tale of two sciences. , 1984, The Philosophical review.

[3]  Thomas Hunt Morgan,et al.  Sex-linked inheritance in Drosophila , 1916 .

[4]  R. Kohler, Lords of the fly: Drosophila genetics and the experimental life. , 1995 .

[5]  I. Hacking,et al.  Representing and Intervening. , 1986 .

[6]  H J Muller,et al.  Genetic Variability, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors. , 1918, Genetics.

[7]  Rachel A. Ankeny,et al.  Model Organisms as Models: Understanding the 'Lingua Franca' of the Human Genome Project , 2001, Philosophy of Science.

[8]  Mark Johnston,et al.  Whither Model Organism Research? , 2005, Science.

[9]  Franz von Kutschera,et al.  Causation , 1993, J. Philos. Log..

[10]  A. Fine,et al.  The Dappled World , 2000 .

[11]  H. Rheinberger Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube , 1997 .

[12]  Karen A. Rader,et al.  Making Mice: Standardizing Animals for American Biomedical Research, 1900-1955 , 2004 .

[13]  Hans Grüneberg,et al.  The mutants of drosophila melanogaster , 1944 .

[14]  P. C. KOLLER,et al.  An Introduction to Genetics , 1939, Nature.

[15]  J. Woodward Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation , 2003 .

[16]  R. Punnett,et al.  The Theory of the Gene , 1926, Nature.

[17]  K. Schaffner Model Organisms and Behavioral Genetics: A Rejoinder , 1998, Philosophy of Science.

[18]  J. Bolker,et al.  Model systems in developmental biology , 1995, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[19]  C. Waters,et al.  What was classical genetics? , 2004, Studies in history and philosophy of science.

[20]  Marcel Weber Philosophy of Experimental Biology: Model Organisms: Of Flies and Elephants , 2004 .

[21]  Nancy Cartwright,et al.  The tool box of science: Tools for the building of models with a superconductivity example , 1995 .

[22]  J. Beatty,et al.  What's Wrong with the Received View of Evolutionary Theory? , 1980, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association.

[23]  Daniel Sarewitz,et al.  World view: A tale of two sciences , 2009, Nature.

[24]  Publications of the Carnegie Institution of Washington , 1938, Nature.

[25]  C. Kenneth Waters,et al.  Causes that Make a Difference , 2007 .