The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Discovery and explanation in biology and medicine
Abstract
Kenneth F. Schaffner compares the practice of biological and medical research and shows how traditional topics in philosophy of science-- such as the nature of theories and of explanation--can illuminate the life sciences. While Schaffner pays some attention to the conceptual questions of evolutionary biology, his chief focus is on the examples that immunology, human genetics, neuroscience, and internal medicine provide for examinations of the way scientists develop, examine, test, and apply theories. Although traditional philosophy of science has regarded scientific discovery--the questions of creativity in science--as a subject for psychological rather than philosophical study, Schaffner argues that recent work in cognitive science and artificial intelligence enables researchers to rationally analyze the nature of discovery. As a philosopher of science who holds an M.D., he has examined biomedical work from the inside and uses detailed examples from the entire range of the life sciences to support the semantic approach to scientific theories, addressing whether there are laws in the life sciences as there are in the physical sciences. Schaffner's novel use of philosophical tools to deal with scientific research in all of its complexity provides a distinctive angle on basic questions of scientific evaluation and explanation. Kenneth F. Schaffner is University Professor of Medical Humanities at the George Washington University, and University Professor of History and Philosophy of Science and Research Professor of Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. He received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Columbia University and his M.D. from the University of Pittsburgh. His previous booksinclude Nineteenth-century Aether Theories and Logic of Discovery and Diagnosis in Medicine.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/392759 · Cited by 3,179
Evolution, the Extended Synthesis
(2010) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262513678.001.0001 · Cited by 964
Role Functions, Mechanisms, and Hierarchy
Craver, C. F. (2001) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/392866 · Cited by 517
Philosophy of experimental biology
(2005) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.42-5262 · Cited by 360
Boorse, C. (2014) · Journal of Medicine and Philosophy · doi:10.1093/jmp/jhu035 · Cited by 313
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 1994-10-01
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 02
- Pages
- 32-0909-32-0909
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W1599003048
- Cited by
- 606
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Discovery and explanation in biology and medicine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.32-0909
- The paper
- Discovery and explanation in biology and medicine. (1994). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.32-0909
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.