مجله زیست شناسی ایران

در آمدی بر فلسفۀ زیست شناسی

نویسنده

همدان، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا

چکیده

گسترش توجه فلسفی به زیست شناسی در طول چند دهۀ گذشته نشان دهندۀ اهمیت روزافزون علوم زیستی در دوران کنونی  است. اکنون منابع علمی گسترده ای در بسیاری از زیرشاخه های مختلف علوم زیستی وجود دارد، و ارائه ی خلاصه ای از آن همه مطلب در یک نوشته کوتاه ممکن نیست. امّا، در این مقاله سعی می شود توضیح داده شود که فلسفه ی زیست شناسی چیست و اینکه چرا زیست شناسی برای فلسفه و فلسفه برای زیست شناسی مهم اند؟ در پایان مقاله فهرستی از مطالب مرتبط و مهم که به موضوعات خاصی در فلسفه زیست شناسی پرداخته اند ارائه می شود. به طور کلی فلسفه ی زیست شناسی با سه نوع مبحث فلسفی متفاوت سروکار دارد. نخست، فلسفۀ زیست شناسی به گزاره های کلی در زمینۀ فلسفه علم می پردازد. دوم، معماهای مفهومی خود زیست شناسی, مورد تجزیه و تحلیل فلسفی قرار می گیرند. سوم، در بحث از پرسش های فلسفی سنتی, زیست شناسی هم جایگاه خود را یافته است.  دو نوع اول از پژوهشهای فلسفی, به طور معمول در حوزه دانش زیست شناسی بحث و بررسی می شوند، اما مورد سوم کمتر با زیست شناسی ارتباط رو در رو دارد. فلسفۀ زیست شناسی را همچنین بر اساس حوزه های نظریه های زیست شناختی مرتبط با آن مربوط می شوند می توان به زیرشاخه هایی گروه بندی کرد.  زیست شناسی طیف متنوعی از رشته های علمی، از علوم تاریخی مانند دیرینه شناسی تا علوم مهندسی مانند زیست فناوری را در بر می گیرد. در هر کدام از این زمینه ها, مسائل فلسفی مختلفی رخ می نمایند. بخش دوم مقاله به این موضوع می پردازد که چگونه فلاسفه به برخی از شاخه های اصلی زیست شناسی نزدیک شده اند.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

  • Amundson, R. (1994). “Two concepts of constraint: adaptationism and the challenge from developmental biology.” Philosophy of Science, 61(4): 556–578.
  • ––– (2005). The changing rule of the embryo in evolutionary biology: Structure and synthesis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ayala, F. J. (1976). “Biology as an autonomous science.” In M. Grene, and E. Mendelsohn (eds.): Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science XXVII: Topics in Philosophy of Biology, 313–329.
  • Bechtel, W., Mandlik, P. et al. (eds.) (2001). Philosophy and the Neurosciences: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwells.
  • Bechtel, W., and Richardson, R. (1993). Discovering Complexity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Beckner, M. (1959). The biological way of thought. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Beurton, P., Falk, R., and Rheinberger, H.-J. (eds.) (2000). The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Boorse, C. (1976). “Wright on functions.” Philosophical Review, 85(1): 70–86.
  • Brandon, R. N., (ed.) (1996). Concepts and Methods in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brandon, R. N. and Burian, R. M. (eds.) (1984). Genes, Organisms, and Populations, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Brandon, R. N. and Sansom, R. (eds.) (2007). Integrating Evolution and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Cooper, G. (2003). The Science of the Struggle for Existence: On the foundations of ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Darden, L. and Maull, N. (1977). “Interfield theories.” Philosophy of Science, 44(1): 43–64.
  • Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Dupré, J. (1993). The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Dupré, J., (ed.) (1987). The Latest on the Best: Essays on Optimality and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Fodor, J. A. (1974). “Special sciences ” Synthese, 28: 77–115.
  • Garvey, B. (2007). Philosophy of Biology. Stocksfield: Acumen.
  • Ghiselin, M. T. (1974). “A radical solution to the species problem.” Systematic Zoology, 23: 536–44.
  • Ginzburg, L., and Colyvan, M. (2004). Ecological Orbits: How planets Move and Populations Grow. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Griffiths, P. E. (2001). “Genetic Information: A Metaphor in Search of a Theory.” Philosophy of Science, 68(3): 394–412.
  • Griffiths, P. E. and Stotz, K. (2007). “Gene”. In M. Ruse and D. Hull, (eds.): Cambridge Companion to Philosophy of Biology, 85–102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hull, D. L. (1965). “The Effects of Essentialism on Taxonomy: 2,000 Years of Stasis.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 15:314–326 and 16:1–18.
  • ––– (1970). “Contemporary systematic philosophies.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1: 19–54.
  • ––– (1974). Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
  • ––– (1975). “Informal Aspects of Theory Reduction”. In Cohen, R. S. and Michalos, A. (eds.): Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosopy of Science Association, 1974, 653–670. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
  • ––– (1988). Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Hull, D. L. and Ruse, M. (eds.) (1998). The Philosophy of Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Hull, D. L. and Ruse, M. (2007). The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology. New York, Cambridge University Press.
  • Jablonka, E. (2002). “Information Interpretation, Inheritance, and Sharing.” Philosophy of Science, 69(4): 578–605.
  • Kitcher, P. (1984). “1953 and all that: a tale of two sciences” Philosophical Review, 93: 335–373.
  • Lloyd, E. A. (1988). The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory. Westport: Greenwood Press.
  • Machamer, P., Darden, L. et al. (2000). “Thinking about Mechanisms.” Philosophy of Science, 67(1): 1–25.
  • MacLaurin, J. and Sterelny, K. (2008). What is Biodiversity? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Maienschein, J. and Laublicher, M. L. (2004). From Embryology to Evo-Devo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Maynard Smith, J. (2000). “The concept of information in biology.” Philosophy of Science ,67(2): 177–194.
  • Maynard Smith, J., Burian, R. et al., (1985). “Developmental Constraints and Evolution.” Quarterly Review of Biology, 60(3): 265–287.
  • Mayr, E. (1969). “Footnotes on the Philosophy of Biology.” Philosophy of Science, 36(2): 197–202.
  • ––– (1982). The Growth of Biological Thought, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Millikan, R. G. (1984). Language, Thought and Other Biological Categories. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  • Mills, S. and Beatty, J. (1979). “The propensity interpretation of fitness.” Philosophy of Science, 46: 263–286.
  • Mitchell, S. D. (2000). “Dimensions of scientific laws.” Philosophy of Science, 67: 242–265.
  • Neander, K. (1991). “Functions as selected effects: the conceptual analyst's defense.” Philosophy of Science, 58: 168–184.
  • Okasha, S. (2007). Evolution and the Levels of Selection. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Orzack, S., and Sober, E., (eds.) (2001). Optimality and Adaptation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Pigliucci, M. and Kaplan, J. M. (2006). Making Sense of Evolution: The Conceptual Foundations of Evolutionary Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Pittendrigh, C. S. (1958). “Adaptation, natural selection and behavior.” Behavior and Evolution. In A. Roe and G. G. Simpson (eds.): 390–416. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Robert, J. S. (2004). Embryology, Epigenesis and Evolution: Taking Development Seriously. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Rosenberg, A. (1978). “The supervenience of biological concepts.” Philosophy of Science, 45: 368–386.
  • ––– (1983). “Fitness.” Journal of Philosophy, 80: 457–473.
  • Rosenberg, A. and McShea, D. W. (2008). Philosophy of Biology: A contemporary introduction. New York and London, Routledge.
  • Sarkar, S. (1992). “Models of reduction and categories of reductionism.” Synthese, 91: 167–94.
  • ––– (1996). “Biological information: A sceptical look at some central dogmas of molecular biology”. In Sarkar, S. (ed): The Philosophy and History of Molecular Biology: New Perspectives. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 183, 187–232. Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer Academic.
  • ––– (1998). Genetics and Reductionism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • ––– (2005). Biodiversity and Environmental Philosophy: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sarkar, S. and Plutynski, A. (2008). A Companion to the Philosophy of Biology. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Schaffner, K. F. (1967a). Antireductionism and Molecular Biology. In Munson, R. (ed.) Man and Nature: Philosophical Issues in Biology, 44–54. New York: Dell.
  • ––– (1967b). “Approaches to Reduction.” Philosophy of Science, 34: 137–47.
  • ––– (1969). “The Watson-Crick model and reductionism.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 20: 325–48.
  • ––– (1993). Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
  • Shrader-Frechette, K. S. and McCoy, E. D. (1993). Method in Ecology: Strategies for Conservation. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Smart, J. J. C. (1959). “Can biology be an exact science?” Synthese, 11(4): 359–368.
  • Sober, E. (1984a). “Fact, fiction and fitness: a reply to Rosenberg.” Journal of Philosophy, 81: 372–383.
  • ––– (1984b). The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  • ––– (1988). Reconstructing the Past: Parsimony, Evolution and Inference. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  • ––– (1999). Philosophy of Biology. Boulder and Oxford: Westview Press.
  • Sober, E., (ed.) (2006). Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  • Sober, E. and Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.
  • Sterelny, K. and Griffiths, P. E. (1999). Sex and Death: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Stotz, K. and Griffiths, P. E. (2008). “Biohumanities: Rethinking the relationship between biosciences, philosophy and history of science, and society”. Quarterly Review of Biology, 83(1): 37–45.
  • Waters, C. K. (1990). Why the Antireductionist Consensus Won't Survive the Case of Classical Mendelian Genetics. In A. Fine, M. Forbes and L. Wessells, (eds.): Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol. 1: Contributed Papers: 125–139.
  • ––– (1994). “Genes made molecular.” Philosophy of Science, 61: 163–185.
  • Williams, M. B. and Rosenberg, A. (1985). “‘Fitness’ in fact and fiction: a rejoinder to Sober.” Journal of Philosophy, 82: 738–749.
  • Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
  • Wilson, R. A., (ed.) (1999). Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  • Wimsatt, W. C. (1972). “Teleology and the Logical Structure of Function Statements.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 3: 1–80.
  • ––– (1976). “Reductive Explanation: A Functional Account”. In Cohen, R. S. (ed.): Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1974: 617–710. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.
  • ––– (1980). Reductionistic Research Strategies and Their Biases in the Units of Selection Controversy. In Nickles, T. (ed.): Scientific Discovery: Case Studies, 213–259. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
  • Woodger, J. H. (1952). Biology and Language: An Introduction to the Methodology of the Biological Sciences including Medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wright, L. (1973). “Functions”. Philosophical Review, 82: 139–168.
مجله زیست شناسی ایران
دوره 2، شماره 3.4
1397
صفحه 17-25
  • تاریخ دریافت: 12 خرداد 1396
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 31 فروردین 1397
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 31 فروردین 1397