Related Info Links
More by Authors Links
News and Announcements
RESEARCH ARTICLE
What Is the Difference Between Claiming That “Life Is Physical” and That “Biology Is Reducible to Physics”?
Show Less
1 Kastamonu Üniversitesi, İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Fakültesi, Tarih Bölümü 37200, Kastamonu , Türkiye
Received: 26 April 2023 | Published online: 8 November 2023
© 2023 by the Authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Abstract
This paper addresses the problem of reductionism, which is a highly controversial issue in philosophy of biology. It is argued that a physicalist approach toward life does not mean that biology is reducible to physics. In this context, the differences between physicalism and reduction to physics are explained. Methodological, epistemological, and ontological aspects of reductionism are dealt with separately, and first, methodological reductionism, which reduces a whole to its parts, is criticized. Then, the epistemological aspect of reductionism is investigated. The basis of theory reduction is the assumption that evolutionary and historical processes do not involve any logical principles, from which it is concluded it is physics, which primarily explores the laws of nature, that provides ultimate explanations about nature. Against this idea, it is argued that the pluralism of scientific explanations and a non-reductionist integration of these explanations can co-exist.
Keywords
Reductionism
pluralism
physicalism
biology
laws of nature.
References
- Andersen, H. (2001). The History of Reductionism versus Holistic Approaches to Scientific Research. Endeavour, 25(4), 153–156.
- Bohr, N. (1958). Light and Life. Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 3-12.
- Brigandt, I., & Love, A. (2023). Reductionism in Biology. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Edward N. Zalta & U. Nodelman).
- Cartwright, N. (1999). The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Çevik, A. D. (2022). Politik Bilim Felsefesi Tartışmalarına Otto Neurath’ın Katkısı. FLSF Felsefe ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (34), 249–277.
- Dupré, J. (1994). Against Scientific Imperialism. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1994, 374–381.
- Dupré, J. (1995). The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Dupré, J. (2010). It Is Not Possible to Reduce Biological Explanations to Explanations in Chemistry and/or Physics. Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Biology (Ed. J. Ayala & R. Arp). Malden, Mass: Wiley-Blackwell, 32–47.
- Earman, J., Roberts, J., & Smith, S. (2002). Ceteris Paribus Lost. Erkenntnis, 57(3), 281–301.
- Elgin, M., & Sober, E. (2017). Popper’s Shifting Appraisal of Evolutionary Theory. HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 7(1), 31–55.
- Green, S., & Batterman, R. (2017). Biology Meets Physics: Reductionism and Multi-Scale Modeling of Morphogenesis. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 61, 20–34.
- Griffiths, P. E., & Stotz, K. (2006). Genes in the Postgenomic Era. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 27(6), 499.
- Hempel, C. G. (1942). The Function of General Laws in History. The Journal of Philosophy, 39(2), 35–48.
- Hull, D. (1972). Reduction in Genetics—Biology or Philosophy? Philosophy of Science, 39(4), 491–499.
- Hull, D. (1974). Philosophy of Biological Science. New York: Pearson College.
- Hull, D. (2002). Recent Philosophy of Biology: A Review. Acta Biotheoretica, 50(2), 117–128.
- Keller, E. F. (2010). It Is Possible to Reduce Biological Explanations to Explanations in Chemistry and/or Physics. Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Biology (Ed. J. A. & R. Arp). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 19-31.
- Kristiansen, A. (2019). The Future of Quantum Biology. https://royalsociety.org/blog/2019/02/the-future-of-quantum-biology/
- Lange, M. (2000). Natural Laws in Scientific Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Mayr, E. (1961). Cause and Effect in Biology. Science, 134(3489), 1501–1506.
- Mitchell, S. D. (2002a). Ceteris Paribus—An Inadequate Representation for Biological Contingency. Erkenntnis, 57(3), 329–350.
- Mitchell, S. D. (2002b). Integrative Pluralism. Biology and Philosophy, 17(1), 55–70.
- Moore, C. (1997). Majority-Vote Cellular Automata, Ising Dynamics, and P-Completeness. Journal of Statistical Physics, 88, 795–805.
- Moss, L. (2003). What Genes Can’t Do. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
- Nagel, E. (1961). The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
- Popper, K. (1957). Tarihselciliğin Sefaleti (Çev. S. Orman). Ankara: Eksi Kitaplar.
- Reutlinger, A., Schurz, G., Hüttemann, A., & Jaag, S. (2021). Ceteris Paribus Laws. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Ed. E. N. Zalta).
- Rosenberg, A. (2008). Darwinian Reductionism: Or, How to Stop Worrying and Love Molecular Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Rosenberg, A., & Kaplan, D. M. (2005). How to Reconcile Physicalism and Antireductionism About Biology. Philosophy of Science, 72(1), 43–68.
- Sarkar, S. (1992). Models of Reduction and Categories of Reductionism. Synthese, 91, 167–194.
- Schaffner, K. F. (1974). Reductionism in Biology: Prospects and Problems. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association D. Reidel Publishing, 613–632.
- Schaffner, K. F. (1993). Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Schrödinger, E. (2012). What Is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell (Canto). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Smart, J. J. C. (1959). Can Biology Be an Exact Science? Synthese, 11(4), 359–368.
- Stamos, D. N. (1996). Popper, Falsifiability, and Evolutionary Biology. Biology and Philosophy, 11(2), 161–191.
- Tümkaya, S. (2021). Nörofelsefe İndirgemeci mi Yoksa Eleyici midir? FLSF Felsefe ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (31), 15–36.
- van Riel, R., & Gulick, R. Van. (2019). Scientific Reduction. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Ed. E. N. Zalta).
- Wimsatt, W. C. (2006). Reductionism and Its Heuristics: Making Methodological Reductionism Honest. Synthese, 151(3), 445–475.
- Wimsatt, W. C. (2007). Re-engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings: Piecewise Approximations to Reality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.