Watson and Crick’s double-helical model of DNA is considered to be one of the great discoveries in biology. However, in 1976, two groups of scientists, one in New Zealand, the other in India, independently published essentially the same radical alternative to the double helix. The alternative, Side-By-Side (SBS) or ‘warped zipper’ conformation for DNA is not helical. Rather than intertwine, as do Watson and Crick’s helices, its two exoskeletal strands are topologically independent. Thus, unlike the double helix, they may separated during replication without unwinding. This dissertation presents, but does not arbitrate among scientific arguments. Its concerns are meta-scientific; in particular, why and how the individuals who invented the & ‘warped zipper’ came to do so. Against Popper and most recent philosophers of science, it is taken to be “the business of epistemology to produce what has been called a ‘rational reconstruction’ of the steps that have led the scientist to a discovery [Popper (1972), p.31, emphasis in the original].” On the received view, the invention of the ‘warped zipper’ must be irrational or, at best, non-rational thereby excluding from philosophical investigation. I establish that this philosophical dogma is not true a priori, as is usually supposed, and, in the case of the SBS structure of DNA, false a posteriori. The motivation for, and development of the SBS structure for DNA reveals a process best characterized as significantly, though not entirely, rational.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ADTP/204146 |
| Date | January 1983 |
| Creators | Stokes, Terence Douglas |
| Source Sets | Australiasian Digital Theses Program |
| Detected Language | English |
| Rights | Terms and Conditions: Copyright in works deposited in the University of Melbourne Eprints Repository (UMER) is retained by the copyright owner. The work may not be altered without permission from the copyright owner. Readers may only, download, print, and save electronic copies of whole works for their own personal non-commercial use. Any use that exceeds these limits requires permission from the copyright owner. Attribution is essential when quoting or paraphrasing from these works., Open Access |
Page generated in 0.006 seconds