...
首页> 外文期刊>Acta Biotheoretica >Pattern Cladistics and the 'Realism-Antirealism Debate' in the Philosophy of Biology
【24h】

Pattern Cladistics and the 'Realism-Antirealism Debate' in the Philosophy of Biology

机译:模式哲学与生物学哲学中的“现实主义-反现实主义辩论”

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Despite the amount of work that has been produced on the subject over the years, the 'transformation of cladistics' is still a misunderstood episode in the history of comparative biology. Here, I analyze two outstanding, highly contrasting historiographic accounts on the matter, under the perspective of an influential dichotomy in the philosophy of science: the opposition between Scientific Realism and Empiricism. Placing special emphasis on the notion of 'causal grounding' of morphological characters (sensu Olivier Rieppel) in modern developmental biology's (mechanistic) theories, I arrive at the conclusion that a 'new transformation of cladistics' is philosophically plausible. This 'reformed' understanding of 'pattern cladistics' entails retaining the interpretation of cladograms as 'schemes of syna-pomorphies', but in association to construing cladogram nodes as 'developmental-genetic taxic homologies', instead of 'standard Darwinian ancestors'. The reinter-pretation of pattern cladistics presented here additionally proposes to take Bas Van Fraassen's 'constructive empiricism' as a philosophical stance that could properly support such analysis of developmental-genetic data for systematic purposes. The latter suggestion is justified through a reappraisal of previous ideas developed by prominent pattern cladists (mainly, Colin Patterson), which concerned a scientifically efficient 'observableon-observable distinction' linked to the conceptual pair 'ontogeny and phylogeny'. Finally, I argue that a robust articulation of Antirealist alternatives in systematics may provide a rational basis for its disciplinary separation from evolutionary biology, as well as for a critical reconsideration of the proper role of certain Scientific Realist positions, currently popular in comparative biology.
机译:尽管多年来在这个问题上已经进行了大量的工作,但是“进化论的转变”仍然是比较生物学史上一个被误解的事件。在这里,我以科学哲学中的一种有影响力的二分法为视角,分析了关于该问题的两个杰出的,史学上存在鲜明对比的史料:科学现实主义与经验主义之间的对立。我特别强调了形态学特征的“因果基础”(sensu Olivier Rieppel)在现代发展生物学的(力学)理论中的观点,得出的结论是,“新的分类学变革”在哲学上是合理的。对“模式分类学”的这种“改革”理解需要保留将分类图解释为“共形-形态”,但是与将分类图节点解释为“发育遗传遗传同调”而不是“标准达尔文祖先”有关。这里提出的模式分类学的重新解释还建议将巴斯·范·弗拉森(Bas Van Fraassen)的“建设性经验主义”作为一种哲学立场,可以为系统目的适当地支持对发育遗传数据的这种分析。后者的建议是通过对著名的模式研究者(主要是科林·帕特森)提出的先前想法进行重新评估来证明的,这些想法涉及与概念对“个体发育和系统发育”相关的科学有效的“可观察/不可观察的区别”。最后,我认为,系统主义中反现实主义者选择的强有力的表达可能为其与进化生物学的学科分离以及对目前在比较生物学中很流行的某些科学现实主义者立场的正确反思提供合理的基础。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号