KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Dört Öge / 2019 / Sayı: 16

Bilimde Denk Anlaşmazlıkları: William Castle ve Richard Goldschmidt, Ortodoks Mendelcilere Karşı

Peer Disagreements in Science: William Castle and Richard Goldschmidt against Orthodox Mendelians

Gökhan Akbay(ULUSLARARASI KIBRIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-1062-8793
Sayfa
17–47
Yayın Tarihi
2019-12-28
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

İki vaka arasındaki fark ların ve benzerliklerin incelenmesi bize bilimsel anlaşmazlıkları etkileyen kuramsal, metodolojik ve kültürel faktörleri ortaya çıkarma olanağı sağlayacaktır.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Ana akım sosyal epistemolojide anlaşmazlık olgusunun ideal vakalar üzerinden ele alınması, kullanılan kavramların sıkı ve gerçekçilikten uzak kriterlerle tanımlanması gibi sorunlar, bu alandaki tartışmaların aktüel bilimsel tartışmaları anlamakta kullanılmasını zorlaştırmaktadır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bu çalışmada, ana akım sosyal epistemolojinin kimi varsayımları eleştirilecek ve bilimsel anlaşmazlıkları etkileyen faktörler ortaya çıkarılmaya çalışılacaktır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:İki vaka arasındaki fark ların ve benzerliklerin incelenmesi bize bilimsel anlaşmazlıkları etkileyen kuramsal, metodolojik ve kültürel faktörleri ortaya çıkarma olanağı sağlayacaktır.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Mendel genetiği · epistemik denk · derin anlaşmazlık

Özet

Ana akım sosyal epistemolojide anlaşmazlık olgusunun ideal vakalar üzerinden ele alınması, kullanılan kavramların sıkı ve gerçekçilikten uzak kriterlerle tanımlanması gibi sorunlar, bu alandaki tartışmaların aktüel bilimsel tartışmaları anlamakta kullanılmasını zorlaştırmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, ana akım sosyal epistemolojinin kimi varsayımları eleştirilecek ve bilimsel anlaşmazlıkları etkileyen faktörler ortaya çıkarılmaya çalışılacaktır. Bu amaçla, genetik tarihinden iki anlaşmazlık vakası seçilmiştir. William Ernst Castle’ın ve Richard B. Goldschmidt’in, ortodoks Mendelciliğe yönelttikleri eleştiriler incelenecek, Mendelcilerin yanıtları tartışılacaktır. Castle vakasında anlaşmazlık kritik bir deneyin sonuçlanmasıyla bitmiş, Goldschmidt vakasında ise anlaşmazlık, Goldschmidt’in ölümüne dek sürmüştür. İki vaka arasındaki fark ların ve benzerliklerin incelenmesi bize bilimsel anlaşmazlıkları etkileyen kuramsal, metodolojik ve kültürel faktörleri ortaya çıkarma olanağı sağlayacaktır.

Abstract

Problems in mainstream social epistemology such as handling the phenomenon of disagreements by means of ideal cases or defining certain concepts with strict and unrealistic criteria, make it difficult to use the debates in this field for understanding actual scientific disagreements. In this study, some basic assumptions of mainstream social epistemology will be criticized and the factors affecting scientific disagreements will be explored. For this purpose, two cases of disagreement were selected from the history of genetics. The criticisms of William Ernst Castle and Richard B. Goldschmidt towards orthodox Mendelism will be examined and the Mendelians’ responses will be discussed. In the Castle case, the disagreement ended with the conclusion of a crucial experiment, in the Goldschmidt case, the disagreement lasted until the death of Goldschmidt. Studying the difference s and similarities between the two cases will allow us to uncover the theoretical, methodological and cultural factors that affect scientific disagreements.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Akbay, G. (2019). Bilimde Denk Anlaşmazlıkları: William Castle ve Richard Goldschmidt, Ortodoks Mendelcilere Karşı. Dört Öge, Sayı: 16, 17–47. https://ajindex.com/articles/114095

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (68)

  1. Allen, G. (1969). T. H. Morgan and the Emergence of a New American Biology. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 44(2), 168-188. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2819438
  2. Allen, G. E. (1974). Opposition to the Mendelian-chromosome theory: The physiological and developmental genetics of Richard Goldschmidt. Journal of the History of Biology, 7(1), 49–92. doi: 10.1007/bf00179293
  3. Altenburg, E., & Muller, H. J. (1920). The genetic basis of truncate wing - an inconstant and modifiable character in Drosophila. Genetics, 5(1), 1-59. Beadle, G. W., & Tatum, E. L. (1941). Genetic Control of Biochemical Reactions in Neurospora. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 27(11), 499-506. doi:10.1073/pnas.27.11.499
  4. Benson, K. R. (2001). T. H. Morgans resistance to the chromosome theory. Nature Reviews Genetics, 2(6), 469–474. doi: 10.1038/35076532
  5. Carlson, E. A. (1966). The gene: A critical history. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.
  6. Carlson, E. A. (2013). How fruit flies came to launch the chromosome theory of heredity. Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research, 753(1), 1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2013.03.001
  7. Castle, W. E., & Allen, G. M. (1903). The Heredity of Albinism. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 38(21), 603. doi: 10.2307/20021812
  8. Castle, W. E. (1905). Recent Discoveries in Heredity and their Bearings on Animal Breeding. Popular Science Monthly, 67, 193-208. url: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_67/July_1905/Recent_Discoveries_in_Heredity_and_their_Bearing_on_Animal_Breeding.
  9. Castle, W. E. (1912). The Inconstancy of Unit-Characters. The American Naturalist, 46(546), 352–362. doi: 10.1086/279284
  10. Castle, W. E. (1914). Pure Lines And Selection. Journal of Heredity, 5(3), 93–97. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a107820
  11. Castle, W. E., & Phillips, J. C. (1914). Piebald rats and selection; an experimental test of the effectiveness of selection and of the theory of gametic purity in Mendelian crosses. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie institution of Washington.
  12. Castle, W. E. (1919a). Piebald Rats and Selection, A Correction. The American Naturalist, 53(627), 370–376. doi: 10.1086/279719
  13. Castle, W. E. (1919b). Is the Arrangement of the Genes in the Chromosome Linear? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 5(2), 25–32. doi: 10.1073/pnas.5.2.25
  14. Castle, W. E. (1933). The Gene Theory in Relation to Blending Inheritance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 19(12), 1011–1015. doi: 10.1073/pnas.19.12.1011
  15. Christensen, D. (2007). Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News. Philosophical Review, 116(2), 187–217. doi: 10.1215/00318108-2006-035
  16. Cruz, H. D., & Smedt, J. D. (2013). The value of epistemic disagreement in scientific practice. The case of Homo floresiensis. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 44(2), 169–177. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2013.02.002
  17. Deichmann, U. (2011). Early 20th-century research at the interfaces of genetics, development, and evolution: Reflections on progress and dead ends. Developmental Biology, 357(1), 3–12. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2011.02.020
  18. Dietrich, M. (2000). From Gene to Genetic Hierarchy: Richard Goldschmidt and the Problem of the Gene. P. Beurton, R. Falk, & H. Rheinberger (Ed.), The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution: Historical and Epistemological Perspectives (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Biology) içinde (91-114). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511527296.007
  19. Dietrich, M. R. (2003). Richard Goldschmidt: hopeful monsters and other heresies. Nature Reviews Genetics, 4(1), 68–74. doi: 10.1038/nrg979
  20. Dobzhansky, T. (1951). Genetics and the origin of species. New York: Columbia University Press.
  21. Dunn, L. C. (1965). William Ernst Castle, October 25, 1867--June 3, 1962. Biographical Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, 38, 33-80.
  22. East, E. M. (1929) The concept of the gene. Proceedings of the International Congress of Plant Sciences, Ithaca New York. 16–23, 1926, vol. 1. Menasha, WI: George Banta Publishing Co. 889–895.
  23. Eichler, E. E., Flint, J., Gibson, G., Kong, A., Leal, S. M., Moore, J. H., & Nadeau, J. H. (2010). Missing heritability and strategies for finding the underlying causes of complex disease. Nature Reviews Genetics, 11(6), 446–450. doi: 10.1038/nrg2809
  24. Elgin, C. Z. (2010). Persistent Disagreement. Richard Feldman & Ted A. Warfield (ed). Disagreement içinde (53–68). Oxford University Press
  25. Falk, R. (2009). Genetic analysis: A history of genetic thinking. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  26. Feldman, R. (2005). Deep Disagreement, Rational Resolutions, and Critical Thinking. Informal Logic, 25(1), 13–23. doi: 10.22329/il.v25i1.1041
  27. Feldman, R. (2006). Epistemological puzzles about disagreement. S. C. Hetherington & S. C. Hetherington (Ed.), Epistemology Futures içinde ( 216–236). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  28. Fisher, R. A. (1918). XV.—The Correlation between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 52(02), 399-433. doi:10.1017/s0080456800012163
  29. Fisher, R. A. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
  30. Fogelin, R. (1985). The Logic of Deep Disagreements. Informal Logic, 7(1). doi: 10.22329/il.v7i1.2696
  31. Goethe, J. W. von, & Miller, G. L. (2009). The metamorphosis of plants. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press. (İlk baskı 1790).
  32. Goldschmidt, R. (1932). The Fourth Reynold A. Spaeth Memorial Lecture: Genetics and development. The Biological Bulletin, 63(3), 337–356. doi: 10.2307/1537336
  33. Goldschmidt, R. (1938a). Physiological Genetics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  34. Goldschmidt, R. (1938b). The theory of the gene. Scientific Monthly, 46. 268-273
  35. Goldschmidt, R. B. (1940). The material basis of evolution. New Haven: Yale U.P.
  36. Goldschmidt, R. (1950). Fifty years of genetics. The American Naturalist, 84. 313-339
  37. Goldschmidt, R. B. (1954). Different Philosophies of Genetics. Science, 119(3099), 703–710. doi: 10.1126/science.119.3099.703
  38. Griffiths, P., & Stotz, K. (2013). Genetics and philosophy an introduction. Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press.Harwood, J. (1993). Mandarins and Outsiders in the German Professoriate, 1890-1933: A Study of the Genetics Community. European History Quarterly, 23(4), 485–511. doi: 10.1177/026569149302300401
  39. Harwood, J. (1993). Styles of scientific thought: the German genetics community, 1900-1933. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Johannsen, W. (1923). Some Remarks About Units In Heredity. Hereditas, 4(1-2), 133–141. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-5223.1923.tb02952.x
  40. Kelly, T. (2005). The Epistemic significance of disagreement. John Hawthorne & Tamar Gendler (ed.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Volume 1. içinde (167-196) Oxford University Press.
  41. King, N. L. (2012). Disagreement: What’s the Problem? or A Good Peer is Hard to Find. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 85(2), 249–272. doi: 10.1111/j.1933-1592.2010.00441.x
  42. Levit, G., & Meister, K. (2006). The history of essentialism vs. Ernst Mayrs “Essentialism Story”: A case study of German idealistic morphology. Theory in Biosciences, 124(3-4), 281–307. doi: 10.1016/j.thbio.2005.11.003
  43. Lugg, A. (1978). Disagreement in science. Zeitschrift Für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie, 9(2), 276–292. doi: 10.1007/bf01801223
  44. Marcus, G. F., Pinker, S., Ullman, M., Hollander, M., Rosen, T. J., Xu, F., & Clahsen, H. (1992). Overregularization in Language Acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(4), i. doi: 10.2307/1166115
  45. Matheson, J. (2015). Disagreement and Epistemic Peers. Oxford Handbooks Online. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935314.013.13
  46. Morgan, T. H. (1913). Factors and Unit Characters in Mendelian Heredity. The American Naturalist, 47(553), 5–16. doi: 10.1086/279325
  47. Morgan, T. H. (1919). The physical basis of heredity. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
  48. Morgan, T. H. (1922). Croonian Lecture: On the Mechanism of Heredity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 94(659), 162–197. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1922.0053
  49. Morgan, T. H. (1926). The theory of the gene. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
  50. Morgan, T. H. (1934). The relation of genetics to physiology and medicine. Nobel Dersi, Stockholm, İsveç. Url: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1933/morgan-lecture.pdf
  51. Morgan, T. H., Sturtevant, A. H., Muller, H. J., & Bridges, C. (1915). The mechanism of Mendelian heredity. New York: Holt.
  52. Muller, H. J. (1914). The Bearing of the Selection Experiments of Castle and Phillips on the Variability of Genes. The American Naturalist, 48(573), 567-576. doi:10.1086/279431
  53. Muller, H. J. (1917). An Oenothera-Like Case in Drosophila. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 3(10), 619–626. doi: 10.1073/pnas.3.10.619
  54. Muller, H. (1918). Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors. Genetics, 3(5), 422-499.
  55. Muller, H. J. (1966). The Gene Material as the Initiator and the Organizing Basis of Life. The American Naturalist, 100(915), 493-517. doi:10.1086/282445
  56. Muller, H. (2016). Erroneous Assumptions Regarding Genes. International Journal of Epidemiology, 45(6), 1733–1735. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyx019 (Özgün makale 1912’de yayımlanmıştır).
  57. Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28(1-2), 73–193. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(88)90032-7
  58. Pojman, P. (2019), "Ernst Mach", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =.
  59. Raffel, D., & Muller, H. J. (1940). Position Effect and Gene Divisibility Considered in Connection with Three Strikingly Similar Scute Mutations. Genetics, 25(6), 541–583.
  60. Rieppel, Olivier. (2011). Wilhelm Troll (1897-1978): Idealistic Morphology, Physics, and Phylogenetics. History and philosophy of the life sciences. 33. 321-42.
  61. Rumelhart, D. E. & McClelland, J. L. (1986). On learning the past tenses of English verbs. Implicit rules or parallel distributed processing? J. L. McClelland, D. E. Rumelhart & PDP Research Group (Ed), Parallel Distributed Processing: Exploration in the microstructure of cognition. Vol. 2: Psychological and biological models içinde. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  62. Sapp, J. (1987). Beyond the gene: cytoplasmic inheritance and the struggle for authority in genetics. New York: Oxford University Press.
  63. Schwartz, J. (2008). In pursuit of the gene: From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  64. Snell, G. D. ve Reed, S. (1993). William Ernest Castle, Pioneer Mammalian Geneticist. Genetics, 133(4), 751-753.
  65. Sturtevant, A. H., Bridges, C. B., & Morgan, T. H. (1919). The Spatial Relations of Genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 5(5), 168–173. doi: 10.1073/pnas.5.5.168
  66. Sturtevant A. H. (1925). The Effects of Unequal Crossing over at the Bar Locus in Drosophila. Genetics, 10(2), 117–147.
  67. Sturtevant, A. H. (2001). A history of genetics. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. (Özgün eser 1965’te basılmıştır).
  68. Pojman, P. (2019), "Ernst Mach", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =.