AccScience Publishing / BIJP / Volume 9 / Issue 2 / DOI: 10.18491/beytulhikme.1465
Cite this article
22
Views
Related Info Links
More by Authors Links
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
News and Announcements
View All
BOOK REVIEW

On the Problem of Interpretation Concerning the Contemporary Philosophy of Biology [*] 

Osman Gazi Birgül1
Show Less
1 Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi, Felsefe Bölümü 06800, Ankara , Turkey
BIJP 2019, 9(2), 337–350; https://doi.org/10.18491/beytulhikme.1465
Received: 17 January 2019 | Published online: 10 May 2019
© 2019 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

In the first part of the study, I discuss three methodological problems of the interpretation of the biological data, namely subjectivity of perspective, anthropocentrism of jargon and perspective-orientation of the studies. Then, I defend intentionality of moral acts against the functionalist morality, emphasizing the interpretation of the observations on animal behavior cannot assume that animals have intentionality. In the second part, I review the ambiguity problem of the traits in the heritability studies. I voice the argument that the heritability studies do not work for the traits with well-circumscribed definitions as well, pointing out three methodological shortcomings of the studies, i.e., overestimation, underestimation and omission of the genetic contribution to the traits.  Disagreeing with those who give priority to biology, I conclude that, methodologically philosophy should be prior in the interpretation regarding the contemporary philosophy of biology.

Keywords
Problem of interpretation
functionalism
morality
ambiguity of the traits
heritability of traits.
References
  1. Baldwin, D. A. (1991). Infants’ contribution to the achievement of joint reference. Child Development, 62, 875-890.
  2. Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. (2013). Genetic Influence on Human Psychological Traits. Arguing About Human Nature (eds. Stephen M. Downes and Edouard Machery). New York: Routledge, 139-144.
  3. Butler, J. (2004). Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge.
  4. Carpenter, M., Akhtar, N., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Fourteen– through eighteen–month–old infants differentially imitate intentional and accidental actions. Infant Behavior and Development, 21, 315-330.
  5. Dahlstrom, D. O. (2013a). Darwinism. The Heidegger Dictionary. London and New York: Bloomsbury, 51-52.
  6. Dahlstrom, Daniel O. (2013b). Ontic. The Heidegger Dictionary. London and New York: Bloomsbury, 146.
  7. De Waal, Frans (2003). Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. (7th printing ). Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
  8. Heidegger, M. (2001). Being and Time. (trans. by John Macquarrie & Edward Robinson). Oxford: Blackwell.
  9. Lakatos, I. (1970). History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1970, 91-136.
  10. Pinker, S. (2003). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York: Penguin Books.
  11. Prinz, J. J. (2012). Beyond Human Nature: How Culture and Experience Shape Human Mind. New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company.
  12. Silk, J. B., Brosnan, S. E, Vonk, J., Henrich, J., Povinelli, D. J., Richardson, A. E, Lambeth, S. P., Mascaro, J., and Schapiro, S. J. (2005). Chimpanzees are indifferent to the welfare of other group members. Nature, (7063), 437, 1357-1359.
  13. Wright, W. (1998). Born That Way: Genes, Behavior, Personality. New York: Routledge.
Share
Back to top
Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy, Print ISSN: 1303-8303, Published by AccScience Publishing