Myth: Philosophy Has No Place in Biology Answer: False

BIOLOGY 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 science, Popper’s theory 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 sciences (1). Some teaching “creation science,” both oppo- of the more recent questions cur- nents and proponents of evolution 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 philosophy of biology evolution came from Ruse—the same is far from one-sided. In fact, 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 Karl Popper argued that Darwinism was not a entrench the authority of the field while biology because interdisciplinary schol- testable scientific theory. 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 knowledge 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 construct phy of biology seeks to aid its scientific knowledge from the ontological reality scientific method through his Princi- ple of Demarcation and Falsifiability. 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 research (2). For tionship between philosophy of science 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 evidence 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 nature 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 history disciplines and causing a rift between Genomic Research Institute defines the and epistemology 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 empiricism 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

Load more