It is commonly held that in vivo biological experimental models are concrete and non-fictional. This belief is primarily supported by the fact that in vivo studies involve biological models which are alive, and what is alive cannot be fictional. However, I argue that this is not always the case. The design of an experimental model could still render an in vivo model fictional because fictional elements and processes can be built into these in vivo experimental models. These fictional elements are essential parts of a credentialed fiction because the designs of in vivo experimental models are constrained by imaginability, conceivability, and credit-worthiness. Therefore, despite its fictionality, it is credible for an in vivo experimental model to stand in for the phenomenon of interest.
This article examines six main elements in the modern story of the impact of Alfred Russel Wallace's 1855 Sarawak Law paper, particularly in the many accounts of Charles Darwin's life and work. These elements are: Each of these are very frequently repeated as straightforward facts in the popular and scholarly literature. It is here argued that each of these is erroneous and that the role of the Sarawak Law paper in the historiography of Darwin and Wallace needs to be revised.
Mechanism diagrams exhibit visually the organized parts and operations of a biological mechanism. A mechanism diagram can facilitate mechanistic research by providing a mechanistic explanation of the phenomenon of interest. Much research has been focusing on the mechanistic explanation and the explanatory mechanistic models. As a specific type of scientific diagram, a simple mechanism diagram can be explanatory by drawing on the rich explanatory resources of non-depicted background knowledge. The relationship between the visually depicted and the background knowledge is underexplored. It is unclear how the non-depicted background knowledge of a mechanism diagram contributes to providing a better-informed explanation of the phenomenon of interest in biological sciences. With the aim to explore this relationship, I articulate that a mechanism diagram provides a mechanistic explanation by a process called abstraction-by-aggregation. Through visual cues, the unified relevant background knowledge provides an epistemic access to a better-informed explanation.