David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Biology and Philosophy 17 (1):55-70 (2002)
The `fact' of pluralism in science is nosurprise. Yet, if science is representing andexplaining the structure of the oneworld, why is there such a diversity ofrepresentations and explanations in somedomains? In this paper I consider severalphilosophical accounts of scientific pluralismthat explain the persistence of bothcompetitive and compatible alternatives. PaulSherman's `Levels of Analysis' account suggeststhat in biology competition betweenexplanations can be partitioned by the type ofquestion being investigated. I argue that thisaccount does not locate competition andcompatibility correctly. I then defend anintegrative model for understanding pluralism. This view is based on taking seriously both thecomplexity and contingency of biologicalorganization and the idealized character ofbiological models. On this view, explanationbecomes, among other things, the location forthe integration of diverse models. I explicatemy argument by an analysis of explanations ofdivision of labor in social insects.
|Keywords||complexity division of labor idealization levels of analysis pluralism self-organization|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Ingo Brigandt (2010). Beyond Reduction and Pluralism: Toward an Epistemology of Explanatory Integration in Biology. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 73 (3):295-311.
M. Chirimuuta (2013). Extending, Changing, and Explaining the Brain. Biology and Philosophy 28 (4):613-638.
M. Chirimuuta (2014). Minimal Models and Canonical Neural Computations: The Distinctness of Computational Explanation in Neuroscience. Synthese 191 (2):127-153.
Alan C. Love (2006). Reflections on the Middle Stages of EvoDevo's Ontogeny. Biological Theory 1 (1):94-97.
James Griesemer (2013). Integration of Approaches in David Wake's Model-Taxon Research Platform for Evolutionary Morphology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (4):525-536.
Similar books and articles
Roy T. Cook (2010). Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom: A Tour of Logical Pluralism. Philosophy Compass 5 (6):492-504.
Marc Ereshefsky (1992). Eliminative Pluralism. Philosophy of Science 59 (4):671-690.
Todd A. Grantham (1999). Explanatory Pluralism in Paleobiology. Philosophy of Science 66 (3):236.
Erik Weber & Jeroen Van Bouwel (2002). Symposium on Explanations and Social Ontology 3: Can We Dispense with Structural Explanations of Social Facts? Economics and Philosophy 18 (2):259-275.
Maria Baghramian & Attracta Ingram (eds.) (2000). Pluralism: The Philosophy and Politics of Diversity. Routledge.
Carla Fehr (2001). The Evolution of Sex: Domains and Explanatory Pluralism. Biology and Philosophy 16 (2):145-170.
Erik Weber & Jeroen Van Bouwel (2009). Causation, Unification, and the Adequacy of Explanations of Facts. Theoria. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science 24 (3):301-320.
W. S. Parker (2006). Understanding Pluralism in Climate Modeling. Foundations of Science 11 (4):349-368.
Sandra D. Mitchell (2003). Biological Complexity and Integrative Pluralism. Cambridge Univ Pr.
James Bohman (1997). Pluralism, Indeterminacy and the Social Sciences: Reply to Ingram and Meehan. [REVIEW] Human Studies 20 (4):441-458.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads75 ( #21,932 of 1,413,409 )
Recent downloads (6 months)11 ( #19,440 of 1,413,409 )
How can I increase my downloads?