Advertisement

Logic and laws in life science

Abstract

From David Hume1 to Karl Popper2, science theoreticians have struggled with the problem of induction: Scientists usually are convinced that conclusions deduced from scientific methodology, if they have proven to be correct over and over in the past, will continue to hold true in the future. Philosophers, in contrast, insist that according to the principles of formal logic one can never be sure about the validity of an empirically deduced scientific fact at a later time or another place. The best one can say is that among the many possible theories that can be deduced from empirical evidence, the one that has proven the most successful in the past is likely to continue being successful in the future3. As a way out of the dilemma, Popper has suggested that scientists should refrain from declaring their theories, even the most successful ones, absolute facts. They should rather accept them as long as they are successful, and be prepared to drop them if they fail to deal successfully with upcoming recalcitrant evidence4. As discussed in Part I, subsequent theoreticians have realized that science does not work that way, and so the lack of a logical foundation of inductive knowledge remains a dilemma.

Keywords

Classical Logic Euclidian Geometry Idiotypic Network Pure Logic Inductive Theory 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Chapter 18 References

  1. 1.
    Miller DS (1949) Hume’s Deathblow to Deductivism. The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. XLVI, No.23 Stove DC, Hume D (1965) Probability, and Induction. The Philosophical Review Vol. LXXIV, No.2Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schilpp PA (ed) (1974) The Philosophy of Karl Popper. LaSalle, Illinois, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Laudan L (1996) Beyond Positivism and Relativism. Theory, Method, and Evidence. Westview Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Popper KR (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hume D (1748) An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Ed. Selby-Bigge, Oxford University Press, 1893Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kant I (1781) Die Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Prolegomena. Drittes Hauptstück. Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Mechanik. Avalable at: http://www.ikp.unibonn.de/kant/aa04/
  7. 7.
    Guyer P (1998, 2004) Kant, Immanuel. In: Craig E (ed) Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge, London. Available at: http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/DB047
  8. 8.
    Fujimura J (1998) Authorizing Knowledge in Science & Anthropology: Comparison with 19th Century Debate on Euclid. American Anthropologist Vol. 100, No. 2Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pancer Z, Saha NR, Kasumatsu J, Suzuki T, Amemiya CT, Kasahara M, Cooper M (2005) Variable lymphocyte receptors in hagfish. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 102: 9224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crick FH, Barnett L, Brenner S, Watts-Tobin RJ (1961) General nature of the genetic code for proteins. Nature 192: 1227–1232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alberts B, Johnson A, Lewis J, Raff M, Roberts K, Walter P (2002) Molecular Biology of the Cell (4th ed). Garland Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Codon Usage Database. Available at: http://www.kazusa.or.jp/codon/
  13. 13.
    Dobzhansky T (1973) Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. The American Biology Teacher 35: 125–129Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dreyer WJ, Bennett JC (1965) The molecular basis of antibody formation: a paradox. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 54: 864–869PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tonegawa S, Maxam AM, Tizard R, Bernard O, Gilbert W (1978) Sequence of a mouse germ-line gene for a variable region of an immunoglobulin light chain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 75: 1485–1489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heisenberg W (1927) Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschr f Physik 43: 197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weizsäcker CF (1958) Zum Weltbild der Physik. Hirzel, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rescher N (1979) Leibniz. An Introduction to his Philosophy. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eigen M (1993) The origin of genetic information: Viruses as models. Gene 135: 37–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eigen M (1993) Virus strains as models of molecular evolution. (The fifth Paul Ehrlich Lecture.) Med Res Rev 13: 385–398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Callaghan A (2006) Emergent Properties of the Human Immune Response to HIV Infection: Results from Multi-Agent Computer Simulations. Available at: http://www.ercim.org/publication/Ercim_News/enw64/callaghan.html
  22. 22.
    Lazar C, Kluczyk A, Kiyota T, Konishi Y (2004) Drug Evolution Concept in Drug Design: 1. Hybridization Method. J Med Chem 47: 6973–6982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McCord, Adams M (1987) William Ockham. 2 vols., Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2nd rev. ed., 1989Google Scholar

Further reading

  1. Popper KR (1963) Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Dawkins R (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. Available at: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species
  4. Dobzhansky Th (1937, 1941, 1951) Genetics and the Origin of Species. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag AG 2008

Personalised recommendations