The Perception of Time. Transcendental Arguments and Temporal Experience. Husserl and the Phenomenology of Temporality. The BTheory in the Twentieth Century. Time in Classical and Relativistic Physics. Time in Cosmology. On Time in Quantum Physics. Time in Quantum Gravity. The Arrow of Time in Physics. Time and Causation. The Representation of Time in Agency.
- Blackwell companions to philosophy in SearchWorks catalog.
- Book information.
- Industrial Dynamics in China and India: Firms, Clusters, and Different Growth Paths (IDE-JETRO Series);
Woodger produced an exploration of traditional philosophical problems in biology, such as vitalism and mechanism, as well as a theory of biological explanation. In he went on to attempt to axiomatize parts of genetics. Arguably, until at least the s, philosophers provided less philosophical insight about biology than theoretically oriented biologists. In the case of mechanistic explana- tion, for instance, as far as substantive biological questions are concerned, Nagel achieved little more than Hogben The Structure of Science from has several sections devoted to reductionism in biology but makes no mention of the double helix or, for that matter, any other development in molecular biology that had raised the potential for successful reduction in biology to an entirely different level Nagel, The situation changed for the better in the late s and s.
Hull , , began to explore the conceptual structure of evolutionary biology. Ruse and Wimsatt were among those who joined this debate. A consensus emerged against reductionism provided that reduction was construed in the fashion inherited from Nagel and the logical empir- icists. Philosophy of biology also played its part, though rather late, in the rejection of logical empiricism in the s and s. Since the early s, the philosophy of biology has had a continuous and increas- ingly prominent presence in the philosophy of science.
Within the general context of the philosophy of biology, the last of these programs has been particularly natural and fecund presumably because philosophers of biology, because of their engagement with biology, are more likely than other philosophers to analyze how humans are evolutionarily produced, constrained, and challenged, as biological organisms.
Moreover, philosophers of biology have quite routinely begun to practice biology. If philosophy is to be done in continuity with science, as Quine once urged, no area in philosophy has followed that dictum more systematically than the philosophy of biology. In the late s, philosophy of biology became almost exclusively concerned with evolutionary theory.
In some ways, this focus was productive; core philosophical ques- tions were addressed about the foundations of evolutionary theory. For instance, Hull a, b; see also Sober, , advanced a discussion of different schools of phylo- genetic analyses that has subsequently developed a rich literature on the method- ological commitments of different schools of thought in systematics and phylogenetics. Philosophers including Wimsatt , Brandon , and Sober produced useful analyses of what constitutes the units of selection, while several prominent biologists, including Lewontin and Maynard Smith , made important philosophical contributions.
However, the almost exclu- sive focus on evolution in much of the literature of the late s and 80s arguably hurt the development of the discipline. Many of the philosophical writings on biology from this period remained inattentive to molecular biology where, for better or for worse, most of biological research had become concentrated. Kitcher , and Rosenberg , however, are notable exceptions.
A Companion to the Philosophy of Time
Kitcher gave a thoughtful sahotra sarkar and anya plutynski A notable exception to these gener- alizations is neurobiology which has always received considerable philosophical attention though usually in the context of the philosophy of mind. Since the early s, in a very welcome development, philosophical writing on biology has extended its scope to cover many areas within biology beyond evolutionary theory.
In particular, Rheinberger , has pioneered the use of techniques from the continental tradition of philosophy in the analysis of experimentation in molecular biology. Philosophers of biology have usually also paid ample attention to the history of biology. With intellectual and technical history gradually falling out of fashion in the professional history of science, philosophers of biology have done much to keep the history of the science of biology alive in contemporary research.
Contrary to many philosophers Sarkar, , he argues that there is more to informational talk in biology than mere metaphor. Both Lewontin and Sarkar emphasize the limitations of a gene-centered view of biology and argue for a more developmentally oriented approach to understanding the emergence of phenotypes. Population genetics has typically been viewed as the theoretical core of evolutionary biology.
He also considers a number of conceptual issues about representation and explanation that arise in the context of theoretical population genetics. He shows how this debate is tied to concerns about the evolution of altruism, the plau- sibility of group and kin selection, species selection and macroevolution, and concludes with a review of multilevel selection theory.
One area that has received relatively little attention in philosophy of biology is the relationship between micro- and macro-evolution, and in particular, issues surround- ing how hypotheses about change at and above the species level are tested. In conclusion, they suggest a resolution to some of the controversy by illustrat- ing how various alternatives might be resolved through careful attention to the grain at which evolutionary processes are being described.
A Companion to the Philosophy of Time by Adrian Bardon
Once again the emphasis is on the complexity of this relation, which was largely ignored in classical genetics. Much of modern evolutionary theory was formulated at the geno- typic level, ignoring the complexities of organismic development. However, it has long been recognized that, eventually, to understand the evolution of phenotypes, we must understand how devel- opmental mechanisms have evolved.
It is an open question whether the near future will be much differ- ent from the past. He provides a philosophical framework for approaching different kinds of explanations in developmental biology, and addresses a variety of related epistemological and onto- logical issues; among them: representation, explanation, typology, individuality, model systems, and research heuristics. One area that has received relatively little attention among philosophers of biology is immunology.
He shows how the concepts of diversity and stability and, also, though to a lesser extent, complexity can be interpreted in a variety of inconsistent ways, making it almost impossible to answer this question. He also embeds philosophical discussions of biodiversity in the context of environmental policy. He considers the roles of model organisms, the limitations and advan- tages of laboratory work in biology, and the nature of evidence and objectivity in the biological sciences.
He considers the objection that laws of biology are not exceptionless and non-acciden- tal, and argues, using a number of different examples, that lawful generalizations are an integral part of evolutionary biology. It is hard to imagine biology without talk of functions but there is little philosophical agreement on what a function is. Yet another contentious issue in philosophy of biology has been the claim whether biological facts are reducible to molecular chemical or physical facts. The biological way of thought. New York: Columbia University Press.
Brandon, R. The levels of selection. Nickles Eds. Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings, 1, — Carnap, R. Introduction to symbolic logic and its applications. New York: Dover Publications.
Dobzhansky, T. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. American Biology Teacher, 35, —9. Man and the universe.
Flew, A. Darwinian evolution. London: Paladin.
You may also be interested in...
Godfrey-Smith, P. Genes do not encode information for phenotypic traits. Hitchcock Ed. Contemporary debates in the philosophy of science pp. Oxford: Blackwell. Goudge, T. Ascent of life: a philosophical study of the theory of evolution. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Haldane, J.