Erratum to: Theory is as Theory Does: Scientific Practice and Theory Structure in Biology (Biological Theory, (2013), 7, 4, (325-337), 10.1007/s13752-012-0046-2);Theory is as Theory Does: Scientific Practice and Theory Structure in Biology

Biological Theory

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 325-337

  Love, Alan C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

EvoDevo; Evolution; Idealization; Modern Synthesis; Practice; Structure; Theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874580673     PISSN: 15555542     EISSN: 15555550     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s13752-012-0058-y     Document Type: Erratum

References (63)

1. Amundson R (2005) The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought: roots of evo-devo. Cambridge University Press, New York DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139164856
2. Beatty J (1986) The synthesis and the synthetic theory. In: Bechtel W (ed) Integrating scientific disciplines. Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 125–135 DOI: 10.1007/978-94-010-9435-1_7
3. Bock WJ (2010) Multiple explanations in Darwinian evolutionary theory. Acta Biotheor 58:65–79 DOI: 10.1007/s10441-009-9094-9
4. Brigandt I (2010) Scientific reasoning is material inference: combining confirmation, explanation, and discovery. Int Stud Philos Sci 24:31–43 DOI: 10.1080/02698590903467101
5. Calcott B (2009) Lineage explanations: explaining how biological mechanisms change. Brit J Phil Sci 60:51–78 DOI: 10.1093/bjps/axn047
6. Caplan AL (1978) Testability, disreputability, and the structure of the modern synthetic theory of evolution. Erkenntnis 13:261–278 DOI: 10.1007/BF00160897
7. Carroll SB (2005a) Evolution at two levels: on genes and form. PLoS Biol 3:e245 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030245
8. Carroll SB (2005b) Endless forms most beautiful: the new science of evo-devo. Norton, New York
9. Carroll SB (2008) Evo-devo and an expanding evolutionary synthesis: a genetic theory of morphological evolution. Cell 134:25–36 DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2008.06.030
10. Chakravartty A (2010) Informational versus functional theories of scientific representation. Synthese 172:197–213 DOI: 10.1007/s11229-009-9502-3
11. Darden L (1986) Relations among fields in the evolutionary synthesis. In: Bechtel W (ed) Integrating scientific disciplines. Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 113–123 DOI: 10.1007/978-94-010-9435-1_6
12. Depew DJ, Weber BH (1996) Darwinism evolving: systems dynamics and the genealogy of natural selection. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
13. Gayon J (1990) Critics and criticisms of the modern synthesis: the viewpoint of a philosopher. In: Hecht MK, Wallace B, Macintyre RJ (eds) Evolutionary biology, vol 24. Plenum, New York, pp 1–49
14. Grant B (2010) Should evolutionary theory evolve? The Scientist 24:24–31
15. Griesemer J (1984) Presentations and the status of theories. PSA 1:102–114
16. Griesemer J (2000) Development, culture, and the units of inheritance. Phil Sci 67:S348–S368 DOI: 10.1086/392831
17. Griesemer J (2011) Heuristic reductionism and the relative significance of epigenetic inheritance in evolution. In: Hallgrímmson B, Hall BK (eds) Epigenetics: linking genotype and phenotype in development and evolution. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, pp 14–40
18. Halvorson H (2012) What scientific theories could not be. Phil Sci 79:183–206 DOI: 10.1086/664745
19. Heffer A, Shultz JW, Pick L (2010) Surprising flexibility in a conserved Hox transcription factor over 550 million years of evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:18040–18045 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1010746107
20. Hesse M (1980) Revolutions and reconstructions in the philosophy of science. Indiana University Press, Bloomington
21. Jones MR (2005) Idealization and abstraction: a framework. In: Jones MR, Cartwright N (eds) Idealization XII: correcting the model. Idealization and abstraction in the sciences. Rodopi, Amsterdam/New York, pp 173–217
22. Kellert SH, Longino HE, Waters CK (2006) Introduction: the pluralist stance. In: Kellert SH, Longino HE, Waters CK (eds) Scientific pluralism. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp vii–xxix
23. Kirschner MW (2012) The road to facilitated variation. In: Love AC (ed) Conceptual change in biology: scientific and philosophical perspectives on evolution and development. Springer, Berlin
24. Krakauer DC, Collins JP, Erwin D, Flack JC, Fontana W, Laubichler MD, Prohaska SJ, West GB, Stadler PF (2011) The challenges and scope of theoretical biology. J Theor Biol 276:269–276 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2011.01.051
25. Laubichler M (2010) Evolutionary developmental biology offers a significant challenge to the neo-Darwinian paradigm. In: Ayala FJ, Arp R (eds) Contemporary debates in philosophy of biology. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp 199–212
26. Laubichler MD, Maienschein J (eds) (2009) Form and function in developmental evolution. Cambridge University Press, New York
27. Levins R (1966) The strategy of model building in population biology. Am Sci 54:421–431
28. Lloyd EA (1988) The structure and confirmation of evolutionary theory. Greenwood, Westport, CT
29. Lloyd EA, Lewontin RC, Feldman MW (2008) The generational cycle of state spaces and adequate genetical representation. Phil Sci 75:140–156 DOI: 10.1086/590196
30. Love AC (2009) Typology reconfigured: from the metaphysics of essentialism to the epistemology of representation. Acta Biotheor 57:51–75 DOI: 10.1007/s10441-008-9059-4
31. Love AC (2010) Rethinking the structure of evolutionary theory for an extended synthesis. In: Pigliucci M, Müller GB (eds) Evolution: the extended synthesis. MIT, Cambridge, MA, pp 403–441
32. Love AC (2011) Darwin’s functional reasoning and homology. In: Wheeler M (ed) 150 years of evolution: Darwin’s impact on contemporary thought and culture. SDSU, San Diego, pp 49–67
33. Lynch M (2007) The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:8597–8604 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0702207104
34. Lynch V, Wagner G (2011) Revisiting a classic example of transcription factor functional equivalence: are Eyeless and Pax6 functionally equivalent or divergent? J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 316B:93–98 DOI: 10.1002/jez.b.21373
35. Minelli A (2010) Evolutionary developmental biology does not offer a significant challenge to the neo-Darwinian paradigm. In: Ayala FJ, Arp R (eds) Contemporary debates in philosophy of biology. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp 213–226
36. Morrison M (2007) Where have all the theories gone? Phil Sci 74:195–228 DOI: 10.1086/520778
37. Müller GB (2007) Evo-devo: extending the evolutionary synthesis. Nat Rev Genet 8:943–949 DOI: 10.1038/nrg2219
38. Norton JD (2003) A material theory of induction. Phil Sci 70:647–670 DOI: 10.1086/378858
39. NRC (National Research Council) (2008) The role of theory in advancing 21st-century biology: catalyzing transformative research. Committee on Defining and Advancing the Conceptual Basis of Biological Sciences in the 21st Century. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12026#toc. Accessed 18 May 2012
40. Pigliucci M (2007) Do we need an extended evolutionary synthesis? Evolution 61:2743–2749 DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00246.x
41. Pigliucci M, Müller GB (2010a) Elements of an extended evolutionary synthesis. In: Pigliucci M, Müller GB (eds) Evolution: the extended synthesis. MIT, Cambridge, MA, pp 3–17
42. Pigliucci M, Müller GB (eds) (2010b) Evolution: the extended synthesis. MIT, Cambridge, MA
43. Rice SH (2004) Evolutionary theory: mathematical and conceptual foundations. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA
44. Rosenberg A (1985) The structure of biological science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139171724
45. Russell ES (1916/1982) Form and function: a contribution to the history of animal morphology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
46. Scheiner SM (2010) Toward a conceptual framework for biology. Quart Rev Biol 85:293–318 DOI: 10.1086/655117
47. Shapere D (1980) The meaning of the evolutionary synthesis. In: Mayr E, Provine WB (eds) The evolutionary synthesis: perspectives on the unification of biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 388–398
48. Stern D, Orgogozo V (2009) Is genetic evolution predictable? Science 323:746–751 DOI: 10.1126/science.1158997
49. Suárez M (2004) An inferential conception of scientific representation. Phil Sci 71:767–779 DOI: 10.1086/421415
50. Suárez M (ed) (2009) Fictions in science: philosophical essays on modeling and idealization. Routledge, Taylor & Francis, New York
51. Suppe F (ed) (1977) The structure of scientific theories, 2nd edn. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL
52. Suppe F (2000) Understanding scientific theories: an assessment of developments, 1969–1998. Phil Sci 67:S102–S115 DOI: 10.1086/392812
53. Thompson P (2007) Formalisations of evolutionary biology. In: Matthen M, Stephens C (eds) Philosophy of biology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 485–523 DOI: 10.1016/B978-044451543-8/50023-X
54. Wasserman GD (1981) On the nature of the theory of evolution. Phil Sci 48:416–437 DOI: 10.1086/289008
55. Waters CK (2007) The nature and context of exploratory experimentation. Hist Philos Life Sci 29:275–284
56. Weisberg M (2006) Forty years of “The Strategy”: Levins on model building and idealization. Biol Philos 21:623–645 DOI: 10.1007/s10539-006-9051-9
57. Weisberg M (2007) Three kinds of idealization. J Philos 104:639–659
58. Wilson M (2006) Wandering significance: an essay on conceptual behavior. Oxford University Press, New York DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199269259.001.0001
59. Wimsatt WC (1980) Reductionistic research strategies and their biases in the units of selection controversy. In: Nickles T (ed) Scientific discovery: case studies. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 213–259 DOI: 10.1007/978-94-009-9015-9_13
60. Wimsatt WC (1981) Robustness, reliability, and overdetermination. In: Brewer MB, Collins BE (eds) Scientific inquiry and the social sciences. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 124–163
61. Wimsatt WC (1987) False models as means to truer theories. In: Nitecki MH, Hoffman A (eds) Neutral models in biology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 23–55
62. Wimsatt WC (2007) Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: piecewise approximations to reality. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
63. Zhao Y, Potter SS (2002) Functional comparison of the Hoxa4, Hoxa10, and Hoxa11 homeoboxes. Dev Biol 244:21–36 DOI: 10.1006/dbio.2002.0595