Talk:Philosophy of biology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Biology
Biology Portal

Philosophy of biology is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Biologists with an interest in the philosophical aspects of biology

With the the exception of Mayr, none of this list has any track record in philosophical discussion, whether of biology or more broadly. (Check their wiki entries and/or bibliography) Most - I except E O Wilson - can best be described as popularisers of science, however eminent, reflective and successful but none has added (or even tried to add) to the philosophical understanding of biology. Nor has any illuminated, in any systematic way, broader philosophical concerns using biological thought or findings. I am not impuning them in their own fields, (they include some of my heroes) but philosophy is a bit more serious than this list suggests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony164 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The above comment is not entirely accurate. In particular, Richard Dawkins, Richard Lewontin, and Stephen Jay Gould have published articles that easily count as philosophy of biology, and all three have had a huge influence on the field. Both Gould and Lewontin have even co-authored articles with philosophers of biology (the former, with Lisa Lloyd, and the latter, with Andre Ariew). --Inrm88 (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Teological language in biology

I removed the following sentences:

  • "And yet biologists continue to use apparently teological language in their explanations of adaptations. According to Darwinism, organisms act "as if" they have purposes, specifically survival and reproduction, because organisms that don't act that way have been weeded out (see the selfish gene). So Darwinism hasn't expunged teological language altogether."

Mainstream biology doesn't regard evolution as teleological. If biologists speak of evolution in such terms, they're speaking in short-hand, anthropomorphizing events for ease of conceptualization and communication. For example, a scientist might say a ball at the edge of a sink "wants" to go the center of the sink (gravity), but he would not mean that the ball has will.--Nectarflowed (talk) 14:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Epistemological and methodological"

I'm not clear on what it means to call reductionism and/or holism "epistemological and methodological". I could go into my problems with the phrase here but, instead, I'll just invite you to explain why its there. --Christofurio 02:51, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding epistemology, reductionism and holism seem to me to be about whether phenomena are known better as parts or as wholes. Can phenomena mentally be reduced to their parts without losing information? These seem to be fundamental views on the nature of knowledge and phenomena and the best approach to knowledge and phenomena.
As for methodology, reductionist and holistic views create different practices, procedures, and rules: either emphasizing breaking phenomena down to their parts or emphasizing analysis on macro levels/through multiple approaches or levels. For example, Ken Wilber's methodology for explaining the nature of consciousness is to draw from both neuroscience and many different philosophical or spiritual traditions. I think this qualifies as a more holistic methodology than, say, approaching the problem with only neuroscience.
On the other hand, I think in some uses, holism may also connote a larger belief system, one feature of which, for example, might be belief in something along the lines of intelligent design.--Nectarflowed (talk) 08:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's part of my concern about the phrase. More generally, I think that the terms can represent metaphysical, even ethical positions. Holists often speak as if reductionism eliminates what they value about the systems they study, which suggests their concerns are ethical at heart. At any rate, I'll see what I can do about re-working the sentence in question in a way you will find satisfactory. --Christofurio 21:43, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)