sign in sign up
<<
Home , Consilience

Myth: Philosophy Has No Place in Biology Answer: False

Yoo Jung Kim ‘14

nterest in the philosophy of Biol- simple explanation. Instead, Yang sug- of , Popper’s was revived ogy as an academic discipline has gests that we can generalize interdis- eight years later, but this time, before Igrown in the past three decades, ciplinary interactions into two catego- the wider public. In 1981-82, during in parallel to the rising prominence ries: the fraternal and the paternal (2). the Arkansas trial over the legitimacy of of the biological (1). Some teaching “creation science,” both oppo- of the more recent questions cur- nents and proponents of in- rently debated within philosophy of voked Popper’s theory in order to both biology address real problems within denounce and to uphold, respectively, the fields such as evolutionary biol- the legitimacy of evolution as a science. ogy, systematic biology, developmen- The testimony invoking the the- tal biology, and ecological biology. ory of demarcation as a criterion for The relationship between scientif- validating the scientific legitimacy of ic biology and the evolution came from Ruse—the same is far from one-sided. In , philoso- Ruse who had denounced Popper’s phy of biology shares a complex rela- theory almost a decade before. Ruse’s tionship with its scientific counterpart testimony prompted the presiding that can be generalized into two cat- judge to declare in his ruling that Pop- egories: paternal and fraternal. Even per’s principle of demarcation and fal- within this categorization, the precise sifiability was one of the “five essential relationship between philosophy and characteristics” of what defines science the applied science remains difficult to (2). While Popper had originally used scrutinize due to the varying opinions his theory to challenge the legitimacy that biologists have in regards to ap- of evolutionary biology, evolutionary plying philosophy within their science. Image courtesy of LSE Library. biologists used Popper’s philosophy to Yet philosophy of biology has a place in Sir argued that Darwinism was not a entrench the authority of the field while biology because interdisciplinary schol- testable . popularizing Popper’s ideas in academ- arship between philosophy of biology ic debates and in the public sphere. and biology can benefit both fields and Paternal Mode and Biology This case alone demonstrates the in- help solve current biological problems. The “paternal” mode of philoso- tricate complexities of the relation be- phy of science assumes authority over tween biology and philosophy of biolo- how science should be practiced and gy, which, depending on the situational Introduction whether certain is scien- context may seem mutually support- Although philosophy of biology fo- tifically meaningful (2). In 1974, Sir ive, conciliatory, and/or conflicting. cuses on the “critical examination that Karl Popper, considered one of the greatest philosophers of science in the governs of our convictions [and] preju- Fraternal Mode and Biology dices,” both biologists and philosophers twentieth century, attempted to rebut the classical inductivist form of the The “fraternal” mode of philoso- of biology seek to observe and phy of biology seeks to aid its scientific knowledge from the ontological reality through his Princi- ple of Demarcation and . counterpart by addressing the necessity to which the field of biology speaks (1). of new methods, tools, and concepts to According to Andrew S. Yang, an asso- Popper’s principle concluded that a theory should be considered scientific address growing epistemological prob- ciate professor of Biology in the School lems stemming from the breakneck of Art Institute of Chicago, “the rela- if and only if it is falsifiable, and as a demonstration of his principle, Pop- progress of biological (2). For tionship between instance, philosophy of biology has ex- and research science appears similar per suggested that Darwinism was not a testable scientific theory. His hy- plored issues concerning causation, ex- to that of family members: intimately planation, and methodology by utiliz- connected, mutually influential, and pothesis quickly drew criticism from other contemporary philosophers of ing generated from research more than occasionally in a quarrel” biology. By doing so, philosophy of bi- (2). Although philosophy’s influence biology, such as the Darwinian phi- losopher Michael Ruse, and later, Pop- ology has demonstrated the capacity to on biological practices and perceptions assist in the science of biology by better is evident, the exact of this in- per ultimately retracted his theory. Despite the rejection of demarca- defining its questions and understand- fluence—as well as the reciprocal sway ing its answers. Many of the different of biology over philosophy—eludes a tion criteria by most of the philosophers

FALL 2011 25 schools of thought in the contempo- cades after Watson and Crick cracked units of heredity” (7). After a century of rary debates in philosophy of biology the molecular structure of the DNA, new discoveries, this definition has fall- commonly utilize biological research subsequent biological discoveries have en obsolete, but even now, the denota- to build up their arguments, which allowed human beings to clone mam- tion of a “gene” remains surprisingly often boil down to subtle differences mals, to genetically modify produce, inconsistent. According to the general in definitions based on the nuanced to decode the human genome, and definition found in Encyclopedia Bri- interpretations of scientific findings. to give rise to a new set of biological tannica, a gene is a “unit of hereditary subdisciplines, such as proteomics information that occupies a fixed posi- (coined in 1994) and genomics (coined tion (locus) on a chromosome” (8). This Bridging the Two Fields in 1984) (4, 5). However, the influx definition fails to account for the ex- Together of biological knowledge may lead to- istence of “jumping genes,” which can ward academic overspecialization, be transposed onto various locations To address the ontological nature impeding cooperation between sub- on the genome. The National Human of biology, philosophers utilize disciplines and causing a rift between Genomic Research Institute defines the and of representations the public and academia. Fortunately, gene as a “basic physical unit of inheri- while researchers utilize questions, philosophy of biology can alleviate tance […] passed from parents to off- measurements, and descriptive/pre- both problems by reconciling concep- spring [that] contains the information scriptive models. Despite differences in tual disparities between biological sub- needed to specify traits” (7). This defi- approach, both philosophy of biology fields and serving as an advocate for nition excludes genes that can be incor- and biology seek to address the same biological research in the public sector. porated into the chromosomes through reality, and the product of each aca- external means, such as retroviruses. demic discipline can prove beneficial Other commonly recognized to the other. Philosophy of biology can Biological terms such as “evolution” and “specia- critique the epistemological framework Overspecialization and tion” also experience this type of am- of biology while biology can provide biguity as different subspecialties use philosophy of biology with data and ev- Ambiguity different criteria and definitions suited idence to fuel debates. Further interdis- In the current state of biological for their respective fields. Further- ciplinary reciprocation of information more, the continuous incorporation of will reveal that that there is no clear academia, scientists face the daunting tasks of dealing with an ever-growing new biological understanding causes demarcation between the two, with these definitions to fluctuate con- “philosophy of biology [differing] from volume of biological knowledge and an increasing competition for limited stantly. Philosophers of biology help biology itself not in its knowledge base, resolve these differences by providing but only in the questions it asks” (1). funding and research positions, which have forced researchers to specialize in more comprehensive models/criteria Members of the general biological and by allowing for these differences community, however, commonly dis- a small area of biology (6). Due to the current trend of overspecialization, bi- by establishing a rationale for concep- regard philosophy’s importance, argu- tual pluralism (commonly found in ing that philosophy is “not applicable, ologists turn into “technical specialists” who often have little more than a “cur- the debates of philosophy of biology) and at worst, runs the risk of clouding by recognizing the validity of multiple the clear-eyed of basic re- sory” understanding of neighboring branches and may form specific con- concepts based on their “relative sig- search” (2). This type of assertion un- nificance to their respective fields” (9). derscores the presumption that biology cepts that fail to address related ideas is a “natural, empirical science,” rather in other subdisciplines (2). Without a than a subjective approach of system- framework for epistemological critique, Connecting Biological atizing reality that may be swayed by specialized biologists may fall victim to assumptions of cultural, ideological, a “subdisciplinary myopia” and lose Research with the Public gender, and scientific normativity (3). sight of the field as a single, intercon- Sphere Philosophy of biology has already as- nected whole. Philosophy of biology, sisted its scientific counterpart “in ad- with its emphasis on rhetorical decon- Overspecialization of biology vancing ideas, putting issues to rest, struction and synthesis, can account for also harms relations with the pub- and overthrowing faulty , such conceptual disparities by forming lic sphere. As concepts and fields be- as well as furthering technological more comprehensive concepts that can come more specialized and cluttered comforts, establishing moral codes subsume existing definitions into mod- with jargon, biology begins to elude and alleviating pain and disease,” and els that better embody the connections the grasp of the general public. There it may be able to address its current between various branches of biology. arises a vast information gap between problems—such as rapidly expanding Another problem of overspecial- the average citizen and basic science. fields and the threat of over-special- ization lies in ambiguities stemming The cooperation of philosophy ization—by providing a framework for from a multiplicity of definitions. For and the science of biology may help critical analysis to redefine and reorga- example, botanist Wilhelm Johannsen this disparity. For instance, those who nize our understanding of biology (3). first coined the term “gene” in 1909 hold the rare distinction of being re- For instance, less than six de- and used it to describe the “Mendelian spected figures in both biology and

26 Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science Advancement of Science, to many, “the significance of philosophical think- notion of destroying an embryo, no ing in biological research. The success matter how noble the cause, conflicts of such collaboration may provide a with their core religious beliefs about model for other inter-multidisciplinary when life begins, and its sanctity” (11). scholarship, which may demonstrate In these cases, educating dissenters the unity of knowledge—not through about the process and the potential or —but as a benefits of hESC research will not be product of creative human expression. enough. Instead, philosophers of biol- ogy can capitalize on their dual exper- References tise over philosophical and biological knowledge by engaging in an ethical 1. P. Griffiths, “Philosophy of Biology,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2011). dialogue with members of the public, Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ listening to their qualms and the mor- sum2011/entries/biology-philosophy/ (23 August al dilemmas they perceive within the 2011). current trend of biological research. 2. A. Yang, Int. Stud. Philos. Sci. 22, 212-225 (2008). Reconciliation through philosophi- 3. F. Ayala, “Introduction,” Contemporary cal engagement with dissenters may Debates in Philosophy of Biology (Wiley- Image retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stephen_Jay_Gould_by_Kathy_ allow biologists and philosophers to Blackwell, West Sussex, 2010). [first edition] Chapman.png (Accessed 29 October 2011). move science forward while addressing 4. Definition of Proteomics (2003). Available at http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art. Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould who was legitimate public concerns stemming wildly influential in 20th-century popular science. asp?articlekey=16299 (22 August 2011). from the breakneck pace of biology. 5. A. von Eenennaam, Animal Biotechnology the philosophy of biology have made Philosophy of biology can ad- Genomics (2010). Available at http:// remarkable strides in the education of dress problems that originate from animalscience.ucdavis.edu/animalbiotech/ Genomics/index.htm (22 August 2011). the public. In his obituary, The New specialization and the rapid influx of 6. L. Garwin, Nature. 376, 547 (1995). York Times lauded Stephen Jay Gould biological knowledge. For instance, 7. Gene (2011) Available at http://www.genome. as a scientist who was “almost univer- philosophers of biology can reconcile gov/Glossary/index.cfm?id=70 (August 2011) sally adored by those familiar with his disparities and ambiguities that ex- 8. Gene (2011). Available at http://www. britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/228226/gene work” outside of academia (10). Other ist in the classification and concepts (August 2011) inter-disciplinary scholars — such as in biology. Furthermore, philoso- 9. M. Dietrich, “Microevolution and Ernst Mayr, John Maynard Smith, phers of biology can educate and en- Macroevolution are Governed by the Same and Richard Dawkins — formed the gage the public in shaping the intel- Processes in and/or Physics,” Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Biology vanguard of biologists who incorpo- lectual, moral, and ethical landscape (Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, 2010). [first rated philosophical concepts in their of biological perception and research. edition] scientific work and popularized their 10. C. Yoon, Stephen Jay Gould, 60, Is Dead respective fields in the public sphere (2002). Available at http://www.nytimes. com/2002/05/21/us/stephen-jay-gould-60-is- Philosophers of biology, with their Philosopher-Scientists dead-enlivened-evolutionary-theory.html (22 dual expertise over science and rheto- Taking these factors into consid- August 2011). ric, can serve as biology’s emissary to eration, steps to facilitate the inter-dis- 11. A. Leshner, Science and Public Engagement the public by informing them of current (2006). Available at http://chronicle.com/article/ ciplinary interaction between biology SciencePublic-Engagement/25084/ (22 August scientific advancements and possible and philosophy of biology have best 2011). implications for mainstream society. been initiated by individuals. Yet biolo- The rapid influx of biological gists who demonstrate proficiency in knowledge has also unsettled certain philosophy are rare; despite the Latin members of the public, who have come roots of “Ph.D.” (philosophiae doctor), to challenge biological researchers on researchers often hold no professional the basis of morality and over obligations to engage in philosophical controversial biological topics. Phi- thinking. As such, for an inter-disci- losophers can also intercede on behalf plinary relationship to take root, phi- of biology by taking part in policy de- losophers must win the cooperation of bates over current controversies in the current biologists by engaging in more discipline. In the debate over human a fraternal vein of research that seeks embryonic stem cell research (hESC), to complement biology to do “better the rationale of dissenters of hESC re- science” and by educating the incoming search cannot be pinned down merely generation of scientists in the impor- on scientific ignorance. Rather, the tance of philosophical modes of . problem lies in the incompatibility of Philosophers of biology must beliefs (11). According to Alan Lesh- communicate the nature of their work ner, a former Chief Executive Officer to the broader of the American Association for the so that the latter may recognize the

FALL 2011 27