v. 28 n. 2 (2008)
Artículos y notas

Inconmensurabilidad teórica y comparabilidad empírica: el caso de la genética clásica

PDF (Español (España))
  • Pablo Lorenzano
Pablo Lorenzano
Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, Argentina / CONICET
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36446/af.2008.160

Publicado 2008-11-01

Creative Commons License

Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Resumo

En esta trabajo se analiza la relación existente entre las propuestas de Mendel, de los "redescubridores" —de Vries, Correns y Tschermak—, de Bateson y colaboradores y de Morgan y discípulos, e.e. la historia de la genética "clásica" ("formal" o "mendeliana"), en términos de "inconmensurabilidad", de forma tal de capturar y precisar tanto la idea de que entre éstas se dan ciertas discontinuidades y rupturas (del tipo de las señaladas por los detractores de la "historia oficial" de la genética) como de que éstas tienen "algo" que ver de algún modo entre sí (y que permitiría comprender la existencia de dicha "historia oficial"). En particular, se introducen, con ayuda del marco conceptual de la metateoría estructuralista, y aplican al presente caso, los conceptos de "inconmensurabilidad teórica" y "comparabilidad empírica" (correspondientes a las nociones de "inconmensurabilidad parcial" y a la "base semántica común" de Kuhn, respectivamente).

PDF (Español (España))

Referências

  1. Bailey, L. H. (1903), “Some Recent Ideas on the Evolution of Plants”, Science, Vol. XVII, No. 429, Friday, March 20, pp. 441-454.
  2. Bar-Hillel, Y. (1970), “Neorrealism vs. Neopositivism. A Neo-Pseudo Issue”,en Bar-Hillel, Y., Aspects of Language, Jerusalem, The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, pp. 263-272.
  3. Bateson, B. (1928), William Bateson, F.R.S., Naturalist. His Essays and Addresses together with a short account of his life, Cambridge,Cambridge University Press.
  4. Bateson, W. (1917), “Gamete and Zygote. A Lay Discourse. The Henry Sidgwick Memorial Lecture, 1917”, en Bateson, B. (1928), William Bateson, F.R.S., Naturalist. His Essays and Addresses together witha short account of his life, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,pp. 201-214.
  5. Bateson, W. (1916), “Review of The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity by T.H.Morgan, A.H. Sturtevant, H.J. Muller and C.B. Bridges, New York,1915”, Science, 44, pp. 536-543.
  6. Bateson, W. (1913), Problems of Genetics, London, Oxford University Press,reimpreso en New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1979.
  7. Bateson, W. (1909), Mendel’s Principles of Heredity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1a. edición, marzo de 1909; 2a. edición inmodificada, agosto de 1909; 3a. edición ampliada, 1913; 4a. edición casi inmodificada, 1930.
  8. Bateson, W. (1907), “Facts Limiting the Theory of Heredity”, Science,26, pp.649-662.
  9. Bateson, W. (1906a), “The Progress of Genetic Research. An Inaugural Address to the Third Conference on Hybridisation and Plant-Breeding”, Reports of the Third International Conference onGenetics, Royal Horticultural Society, pp. 90-97.
  10. Bateson, W. (1906b), “A Text Book of Genetics. Review of J.P. Lotsy’s Vorlesungenüber Deszendenztheorien, 1 Theil, Jena, 1906”, Nature, 74, pp. 146-147.
  11. Bateson, W. (1905a), “Letter to Adam Sedgwick from 18.4.1905”, reimpresa en Bateson, B. (1928), William Bateson, F.R.S., Naturalist. His Essays& Addresses together with a short account of his life, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 93.
  12. Bateson, W. (1905b), “Letter to Nature”, Nature,71, p. 390.
  13. Bateson, W. (1902), Mendel’s Principles of Heredity. A Defence, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  14. Bateson, W. (1894), Materials for the Study of Variation, treated with special regard to Discontinuity in the Origin of Species, London, Macmillan and Co.
  15. Bateson, W. y Punnett, R. C. (1911a), “On Gametic Series involving Reduplication of Certain Terms”, Journal of Genetics, I, pp. 293-302.
  16. Bateson, W. y Punnett, R. C. (1911b), “On the Interrelations of Genetic Factors”, Proceedings of the Royal Society B 84, pp. 3-8.
  17. Bateson, W. y Punnett, R. C. (1905), “A Suggestion as to the Nature of the ‘Walnut’ Comb in Fowls”, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 13, pp. 165-168.
  18. Bateson, W. y Saunders, E. R. (1902), “Experimental Studies in the Physiology of Heredity”, Reports to the Evolution Committee of the Royal Society, Report I.
  19. Bateson, W., Saunders, E. R. y Punnett, R. C. (1908), “Experimental Studies in the Physiology of Heredity”, Reports to the Evolution Committee of the Royal Society, Report IV.
  20. Bateson, W., Saunders, E. R. y Punnett, R. C. (1906), “Experimental Studies in the Physiology of Heredity”, Reports to the Evolution Committee of the Royal Society, Report III.
  21. Bateson, W., Saunders, E. R. y Punnett, R. C. (1905), “Further Experiments on Inheritance in Sweet Peas and Stocks: Preliminary Account”, Proceedings of the Royal Society B 77, pp. 236-238.
  22. Bateson, W., Saunders, E. R., Punnett, R. C. y Kilby, H (1905), “Experimental Studies in the Physiology of Heredity”, Reports to the Evolution Committee of the Royal Society, Report II.
  23. Bowler, P. (1989), The Mendelian Revolution, London, The Athlone Press.
  24. Coleman, W. (1970), “Bateson and Chromosomes: Conservative Thought in Science”, Centaurus,15, pp. 228-314.
  25. Correns, C. (1922), “Etwas über Gregor Mendels Leben und Wirken”, Die Naturwissenschaften, 29, pp. 623-631.
  26. Correns, C. (1900a), “G. Mendels Regel über das Verhalten der Nachkommenschaftder Rassenbastarde”, Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft,18, pp. 158-168.
  27. Correns, C. (1900b), “Gregor Mendel’s ‘Versuche über Pflanzen-Hybriden’und die Bestätigung ihrer Ergebnisse durch die neuesten Untersuchungen”, Botanische Zeitung, 58, pp. 229-235.
  28. Creighton, H. y Mc Clintock, B. (1931), “A Correlation of Cytological and Genetical Crossing Over in Zea mays”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 17, pp. 492-497.
  29. Dexter, J. S. (1914), “The Analysis of a Case of Continuous Variation in Drosophila by a Study of its Linkage Relations”, American Naturalist, 48, pp. 712-758.
  30. Díez, J. A. (2006), “Rivalry and Comparability: Looking Outside the Theories”, en Ernst, G. y Niebergall, K.-G. (eds.), Philosophie der Wissenschaft – Wissenschaft der Philosophie. Festschrift für C. Ulises Moulines zum 60. Geburstag, Paderborn, Mentis-Verlag, pp. 31-49.
  31. East, E. M. (1910), “A Mendelian Interpretation of Variation that is Apparently Continuous”, American Naturalist, 44, pp. 65-82.
  32. East, E. M. y Hayes, H. K. (1911), “Inheritance in Maize”, Connecticut Agricultural Station Bulletin,167, pp. 1-141.
  33. Falguera, J. L. (2004), “Las revoluciones científicas y el problema de la inconmensurabilidad”, en González, W. J. (ed.), Análisis de Thomas Kuhn: Las revoluciones científicas, Madrid, Editorial Trotta, 2004,pp. 177-223.
  34. Falguera, J. L. (1999), “Ontosemantic Divergence and Comparability of Theories”, Logica Trianguli,3, pp. 33-53.
  35. Feyerabend, P. K. (1981), Realism, Rationalism, and Scientific Method, New York, Cambridge University Press.
  36. Feyerabend, P. K. (1965), “Problems of Empiricism”, en Colodny, R. (ed.), Beyond the Edge of Certainty, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 1965, pp. 145-260.
  37. Feyerabend, P. K. (1962), “Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism”, en Feigl, H. y Maxwell, G. (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, III, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1962, pp. 28-97.274
  38. Hempel, C. (1970), “On the ‘Standard Conception’ of Scientific Theories”,en Radner, M. y Winokur, S. (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. IV, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1970, pp. 142-161.
  39. Hempel, C. (1969), “On the Structure of Scientific Theories”, en Suter, R. (ed.), Isenberg Memorial Lectures Series, 1965-1966, East Lansing, Michigan State University Press, pp. 11-38.
  40. Hempel, C. (1966), Philosophy of Natural Science, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.
  41. Iltis, H. (1924), Gregor Johann Mendel: Leben, Werk und Wirkung, Berlin, J. Springer.
  42. Kuhn, T. S. (1997), “A Discussion with Thomas S. Kuhn”, en Conant, J. y Haugeland, J. (eds.), The Road Since Structure, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 2000, pp. 255-323.
  43. Kuhn, T. S. (1993), “Afterwords”, en Horwich, P. (ed.), World Changes: Thomas Kuhn and the Nature of Science, Cambridge, MA, M.I.T.Press, 1993, pp. 311-341.
  44. Kuhn, T. S. (1992), “Introduction to Presidential Address”, en Hull, D., Forbes,M. y Okruhlick, K. (eds.), PSA 1992, Vol. 2, East Lansing, Philosophy of Science Association, 1992, pp. 3-5.
  45. Kuhn, T. S. (1990), “Dubbing and Redubbing: The Vulnerability of Rigid Designation”, en Savage, W. (ed.), Scientific Theories, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 14, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1990, pp. 289-318.
  46. Kuhn, T. S. (1989), “Possible Worlds in History of Science”, en Allén, S. (ed.),Possible Worlds in Humanities, Arts, and Sciences, Berlin, deGruyter, 1989, pp. 9-32.
  47. Kuhn, T. S. (1983a), “Commensurability, Comparability, Communicability”, en Asquith, P. D. y Nickles, T. (eds.), PSA 1982, East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, 1983, 2, pp. 669-688.
  48. Kuhn, T. S. (1983b), “Rationality and Theory Choice”, Journal of Philosophy, 80 (1983), pp. 563-570.
  49. Kuhn, T. S. (1981), “What are Scientific Revolutions?”, Occasional Paper #18: Center for Cognitive Science, M.I.T., 1981; reimpreso en Krüger, L., Daston, L. J. y Heidelberger, M. (eds.): The Probabilistic Revolution, Vol. I: Ideas in History, Cambridge, M.I.T. Press, 1987,pp. 7-22.
  50. Kuhn, T. S. (1977), The Essential Tension. Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
  51. Kuhn, T. S. (1976), “Theory Change as Structure Change: Comments on the Sneed Formalism”, Erkenntnis,10 (1976), pp. 179-199.
  52. Kuhn, T. S. (1973), “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice”, en Kuhn, T.S. (1977), The Essential Tension. Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, pp. 320-339.
  53. Kuhn, T. S. (1971), “Notes on Lakatos”, en Buck, R.C. y Cohen, R.S. (eds.),PSA 1970: In Memory of Rudolf Carnap. Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting, Philosophy of Science Association, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. VIII, Dordrecht, Reidel,1971, pp. 137-146.
  54. Kuhn, T. S. (1969a), “Second Thoughts on Paradigms”, en Suppe, F. (ed.), The Structure of Scientific Theories, Urbana, Ill., University of Illinois Press, 1974, 2ª ed. 1977, pp. 459-482.
  55. Kuhn, T. S. (1969b), “Reflections on my Critics”, en Lakatos, I. y Musgrave, A.(eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1970, pp. 231-278.
  56. Kuhn, T. S. (1969c), “Postscript–1969”, en Kuhn, T.S., The Structure ofScientific Revolutions, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2ª ed.1970, pp. 174-210.
  57. Kuhn, T. S. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1962, 2ª ed. 1970.
  58. Kuhn, T. S. (1959), “The Essential Tension: Tradition and Innovation in Scientific Research”, en Taylor, C.W. (ed.), The Third (1959) University of Utah Research Conference on the Identification of Scientific Talent, Salt LakeCity, University of Utah Press, 1959, pp. 162-174.
  59. Janssens, F. A. (1909), “Spermatogénèse dans les Batraciens: V. La theórie de la chiasmatype: nouvelle interprétation des cinèses de maturation”, La Cellule, 25, pp. 389-406.
  60. Johannsen, W. (1911), “The Genotype Conception of Heredity”, American Naturalist, 45, pp. 129-159.
  61. Johannsen, W. (1909), Elemente der exakten Erblichkeitslehre, Jena, Gustav Fischer.
  62. Lorenzano, P. (2006), “La emergencia de un programa de investigación en genética”, en Lorenzano, P., Martins, L. A.-C.P. y Regner, A. C. (eds.), Ciências da vida: estudos filosóficos e históricos, Campinas, Associação de Filosofia e História da Ciência do Cone Sul (AFHIC),2006, pp. 333-360.
  63. Lorenzano, P. (2002a), “La teoría del gen y la red teórica de la genética”, en Díez, J.A. y Lorenzano, P. (eds.), Desarrollos actuales de la metateoría estructuralista: problemas y discusiones, Quilmes, Universidad Nacional de Quilmes / Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas / Universidad Rovira i Virgili, pp. 285-330
  64. Lorenzano, P. (2002b), “Leyes fundamentales, refinamientos y especializaciones: del ‘mendelismo’ a la ‘teoría del gen’”, en Lorenzano, P. y Tula Molina, F. (eds.), Filosofía e Historia de la Ciencia en el Cono Sur, Quilmes, Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, pp. 379-396.
  65. Lorenzano, P. (2000a), “Erich Tschermak: supuesto ‘redescubridor’de Mendel”, Epistemología e Historia de la Ciencia, 6, pp. 251-258.
  66. Lorenzano, P. (2000b), “Classical Genetics and the Theory-Net of Genetics”, en Balzer, W., Moulines, C. U. y Sneed, J. (eds.), Structuralist Knowledge Representation: Paradigmatic Examples, Amsterdam, Rodopi, pp. 251-284.
  67. Lorenzano, P. (1999), “Carl Correns y el redescubrimiento’de Mendel”, Epistemología e Historia de la Ciencia, 5, pp. 265-272.
  68. Lorenzano, P. (1998), “Acerca del ‘redescubrimiento’ de Mendel por Hugo deVries”, Epistemología e Historia de la Ciencia,4, pp. 219-229.
  69. Lorenzano, P. (1997), “Hacia una nueva interpretación de la obra de Mendel”, en Ahumada, J. y Morey, P. (eds.), Selección de trabajos de las VII Jornadas de Epistemología e Historia de la Ciencia, Córdoba, Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, pp. 220-231.
  70. Lorenzano, P. (1995), Geschichte und Struktur der klassischen Genetik, Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang.
  71. Mac Dowell, E.C. (1914), “Multiple Factors in Mendelian Inheritance”, Journal of Experimental Zoology, 16, pp. 177-194.
  72. Mendel, G. (1869),“Über einige aus künstlicher Befruchtung gewonnenen Hieracium-Bastarde”, Verhandlungen des Naturforschenden Vereins zu Brünn, 8, pp. 26-31.
  73. Mendel, G. (1865), “Versuche über Pflanzen-Hybriden”, Verhandlungen des Naturforschenden Vereins zu Brünn, 4, pp. 3-57, reimpreso en Ostwalds Klassikern der exakten Wissenschaften, 6,Braunschweig, Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, 1970.
  74. Morgan, T.H., (1926), The Theory of Gene, New Haven, Yale University Press.
  75. Morgan, T.H., (1919), The Physical Basis of Heredity, Philadelphia, Lippincott.
  76. Morgan, T.H., (1913), Heredity and Sex, New York, Columbia University Press.
  77. Morgan, T.H., (1911), “Origin of Nine Wing Mutations in Drosophila”, Science, 33, pp. 496-499.
  78. Morgan, T. H., Sturtevant, A. H., Muller, H. J. y Bridges, C.B. (1915), The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity, New York, Henry Holt and Company.
  79. Moulines, C.U. (1984), “Ontological Reduction in the Natural Sciences”, en Balzer, W., Pearce, D. y Schmidt, H.-J. (eds.), Reduction inScience, Dordrecht, Reidel, 1984, pp. 51-70.
  80. Nilsson-Ehle, H. (1909), “Kreuzungsuntersuchungen an Hafer und Weizen”, Lunds Universitets Årsskrift, 52.
  81. Punnett, R. C. (ed.) (1928), Scientific Papers of William Bateson, Cambridge,Cambridge University Press.
  82. Punnett, R. C. (1905), Mendelism, Cambridge, Macmillan and Co, 1ª ed., 2ª ed.,1907, 3ª ed. 1911, 4ª ed. 1912, 5ª ed. 1919, 6ª ed. 1922, 7ª ed. 1927.
  83. Olby, R. (1987), “William Bateson’s Introduction of Mendelism to England:A Reassessment”, British Journal for the History of Science, 20, pp.399-420.
  84. Olby, R. (1979), “Mendel No Mendelian?”, History of Science,17, pp. 53-72; reimpreso en Olby, R. (1985), Origins of Mendelism, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 2ª ed. aumentada, pp. 234-258.
  85. Stegmüller, W. (1979), The Structuralist View of Theories, New York, Springer.
  86. Stern, C. (1931), “Zytologisch-genetische Untersuchungen als Beweise fürdie Morgansche Theorie des Factorenaustauschs”, Biologisches Zentralblatt, 51, pp. 647-687.
  87. Sturtevant, A. H. (1913a), “The Himalayan Rabbit, With Some Considerations for Multiple Allelomorphs”, American Naturalist, 47, pp. 234-238.
  88. Sturtevant, A. H. (1913b), “The Linear Arrangement of Six Sex-Linked Factors in Drosophila, as Shown by Their Mode of Association”, Journal of Experimental Zoology, 14, pp. 43-59.
  89. Tschermak, E. (1925), “Letter to Roberts of January 7, 1925”, en Roberts, H.F. (1929), Plant Hybridization Before Mendel, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, pp. 343-347.
  90. Tschermak, E. (1902a), “Über die gesetzmässige Gestaltungsweise der Mischlinge”, Zeitschrift für das Landwirtschaftliche Versuchswesen in Österreich,5, pp. 781-860.
  91. Tschermak, E. (1902b), “Der gegenwärtige Stand der Mendel’schen Lehre und die Arbeiten von W. Bateson”, Zeitschrift für das Landwirtschaftliche Versuchswesen in Österreich, 5, pp. 1365-1392.
  92. Tschermak, E. (1900a), “Über künstliche Kreuzung bei Pisum sativum”, Zeitschrift für das Landwirtschaftliche Versuchswesen in Österreich, 3, pp. 465-555.
  93. Tschermak, E. (1900b), “Über künstliche Kreuzung bei Pisum sativum”, Berichteder Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft, 18, pp. 232-239.
  94. Tschermak, E. (1900c), “Über künstliche Kreuzung bei Pisum sativum”, Biologisches Centralblatt, 20, pp. 593-595.
  95. Vicedo, M. (1991), “Realism and Simplicity in the Castle-East Debate on the Stability of the Hereditary Units: Rethorical Devices versus Substantive Methodology”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science,22, pp. 201-221.
  96. Vicedo, M. (1990a), “The Chromosome Theory of Mendelian Inheritance: Explanation and Realism in Theory Construction”, Fine, A., Forbes,M. y Wessels, L. (eds.) (1990), PSA 1990, East Lansing, Michigan, Philosophy of Science Association, 1, pp. 170-191.
  97. Vicedo, M. (1990b), “T. H. Morgan, Neither an Epistemological Empiricist nor a ‘Methodological’Empiricist”, Biology and Philosophy, 5, pp. 293-311.
  98. Vries, H. de, (1889), Intracellulare Pangenesis, Jena, Fischer; reimpreso en Vries, H. de, Opera e Periodicis Collata, 7 tomos, Utrecht, A.Oosthoek, 1918-1927, tomo V, pp. 1-149.
  99. Vries, H. de, (1900a), “Sur la loi de disjonction des hybrides”, Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, 130, pp. 845-847.
  100. Vries, H. de, (1900b), “Das Spaltungsgesetz der Bastarde (Vorläufige Mittheilung)”, Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft,18, pp. 83-90.
  101. Vries, H. de, (1900c), “Sur les unités des caractéres spécifiques et leur application a l’étude des hybrides”, Revue générale de Botanique,12, pp.257-271.
  102. Zamora Bonilla, J. P. (2003), “Meaning and Testability in the Structuralist Theory of Science”, Erkenntnis, 59, pp. 47-76