The concept of the gene has been the central organizing theme of 20th century biology. Biology has become increasingly influential both for philosophers seeking a naturalized basis for epistemology, ethics, and the understanding of the mind, as well as for the human sciences generally. The central task of this work is to get the story right about genes and in so doing provide a critical and enabling resourse for use in the further pursuit of human self-understanding. ;The work begins with (...) a wide-ranging historical reconstruction and conceptual analysis of the meaning of "the gene" that results in defining and distinguishing two different "genes". Each of these can be seen as an heir to one of the two major historical trends in explaining the source of biological order---preformationism and epigenesis. The preformationist gene predicts phenotypes but only on an instrumental basis where immediate medical and/or economic benefits can be had. The gene of epigenesis , by contrast, is a developmental resource that provides templates for RNA and protein synthesis but has in itself no determinate relationship to organismal phenotypes. The seemingly prevalent idea that genes constitute information for traits is based, I argue, upon an unwarranted conflation of these two senses which is in effect held together by rhetorical glue. Beyond this historical, conceptual, and rhetorical inquiry the bulk of the dissertation then concerns itself with an empirically up-to-date analysis of the cell and molecular basis of biological order and of the pathological loss of same. In each of these chapters I structure my analysis with the idea in mind that the "conflated" view can be held empirically accountable. Major touchpoints in this work include the ideas of I. Kant, J. Blumenbach, K. E. von Baer, J. Muller, R. Virchow, W. Johannsen, R. Falk, J. Sapp, E. Schrodinger, M. Delbruick, G. Gamow, R. Doyle, L. Kay, S. Kauffman, E. Jablonka, J. Rothman, K. Yamamoto, P. Rous, H. Temin, J. M. Bishop, H. Harris, E. Stanbridge, D. L. Smithers, B. Vogelstein, E. Farber and H. Rubin. (shrink)

If the question ``What is a gene?'' proves to be worth asking it must be able to elicit an answer which both recognizes and address the reasons why the concept of the gene ever seemed to be something worth getting excited about in the first place as well analyzing and evaluating the latest develops in the molecular biology of DNA. Each of the preceding papers fails to do one of these and sufferrs the consequences. Where Rolston responds to the apparent (...) failure of molecular biology to make good on the desideratum of the classical gene by veering off into fanciful talk about ``cybernetic genes,'' Griffiths and Stotz lose themselves in the molecular fine print and forget to ask themselves why ``genes'' should be of any special interst anyway. (shrink)

Book review of Lenny Moss, What Genes Can’t Do. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press , 256 pp. -/- Many philosophers of science will have encountered the core distinction between two different gene concepts found in What Genes Can’t Do. Moss argues that contemporary uses of the term ‘gene’ that denote an information bearing entity result from the conflation of two concepts (‘Gene-P’ and ‘Gene-D’).

The philosopher dealing with problems of the epistemology and logic of scientific knowledge cannot disregard those truly immense changes that have occurred in science in the present century. Moreover, he must interest himself not only in what has been learned in the objective world that is new, but by what new methods and means this knowledge has been acquired, how its structure has changed, what categories define the essence of contemporary scientific theorizing, and its outreach into cognition in the future. (...) Of course, the character, structure, and methods of the scientific acquisition of knowledge are determined in the final analysis by what it is that is being cognized, what things and processes are coming to be known. However, direct influence upon logical concepts in the theory of knowledge is brought to bear in the very process of cognition, in its methods and means of approaching the reflection of the object. (shrink)

A consistent causal interpretation of the Klein-Gordon equation treated as a field equation has been developed, and leads to a model of entities described by the Klein-Gordon equation, i.e., spinless, massive bosons, as objectively existing fields. The question arises, however, as to whether a causal interpretation based on a particle ontology of the Klein-Gordon equation is also possible. Our purpose in this article will be to indicate, by making what we believe is a best possible attempt at developing a particle (...) interpretation of the Klein-Gordon equation, that such an interpretation is untenable. To resolve the nonpositive-definite probability density difficulties with the Klein-Gordon equation, we modify this equation by the introduction of an evolution parameter. We base our subsequent considerations on this modified Klein-Gordon equation. Partly to motivate the need for a relativistic causal interpretation and partly to give emphasis to aspects of the causal interpretation often overlooked, we begin our article with a brief historical survey of the causal interpretation. (shrink)

Using covariant derivatives and the operator definitions of quantum mechanics, gauge invariant Proca and Lehnert equations are derived and the Lorenz condition is eliminated in U(1) invariant electrodynamics. It is shown that the structure of the gauge invariant Lehnert equation is the same in an O(3) invariant theory of electrodynamics.

It would be difficult to name a more interesting scientific problem than that of knowledge of the brain, its overall mechanisms and its molecular nature. Rational management of the brain in the future and utilization of the principles of its functioning to construct various mechanisms to undergird present-day technological progress should follow as direct consequences of development of that sphere of knowledge.

‘To Gödel via Babel’, MIND, July 1966.In (1), the last clause should read: ‘then the GN of the resulting P-sentence is x100.y’ In (21), the expression in Roman numerals should read: ‘$$Y.\frac{\hbox{ L }Y}{\hbox{ XIX }}$$’ In (25) and (27), the expression in Roman numerals should read: ‘$${(\hbox{ C }}^{\hbox{ XVII }}.\hbox{ D })\hbox{ . }\frac{\hbox{ L }\left({\hbox{ C }}^{\hbox{ XVII }}.\hbox{ D }\right)}{\hbox{ XIX }}$$’.