David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 72 (1):43-68 (2005)
Physicalism and antireductionism are the ruling orthodoxy in the philosophy of biology. But these two theses are difficult to reconcile. Merely embracing an epistemic antireductionism will not suffice, as both reductionists and antireductionists accept that given our cognitive interests and limitations, non-molecular explanations may not be improved, corrected or grounded in molecular ones. Moreover, antireductionists themselves view their claim as a metaphysical or ontological one about the existence of facts molecular biology cannot identify, express, or explain. However, this is tantamount to a rejection of physicalism and so causes the antireductionist discomfort. In this paper we argue that vindicating physicalism requires a physicalistic account of the principle of natural selection, and we provide such an account. The most important pay-off to the account is that it provides for the very sort of autonomy from the physical that antireductionists need without threatening their commitment to physicalism
|Keywords||Antireductionism Autonomy Biology Laws Physicalism Science|
|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
Alvaro Moreno & Kepa Ruiz-Mirazo (2009). The Problem of the Emergence of Functional Diversity in Prebiotic Evolution. Biology and Philosophy 24 (5):585-605.
Gregory J. Morgan (2010). Laws of Biological Design: A Reply to John Beatty. Biology and Philosophy 25 (3):379-389.
Slobodan Perovic & Paul-Antoine Miquel (2011). On Gene's Action and Reciprocal Causation. Foundations of Science 16 (1):31-46.
John Matthewson (2011). Trade-Offs in Model-Building: A More Target-Oriented Approach. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (2):324-333.
Christophe Malaterre (2007). Organicism and Reductionism in Cancer Research: Towards a Systemic Approach. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21 (1):57 – 73.
Similar books and articles
Tudor M. Baetu (2011). Mechanism Schemas and the Relationship Between Biological Theories. In Phyllis McKay Illari Federica Russo (ed.), Causality in the Sciences. Oxford University Press
A. D. Smith (1993). Non-Reductive Physicalism? In Howard M. Robinson (ed.), Objections to Physicalism. Oxford University Press
Philip Gasper (1992). Reduction and Instrumentalism in Genetics. Philosophy of Science 59 (4):655-670.
Alexander Rosenberg (2006). Darwinian Reductionism, or, How to Stop Worrying and Love Molecular Biology. University of Chicago Press.
K. I. M. Sungsu (2009). Multiple Realizations, Diverse Implementations and Antireductionism. Theoria 75 (3):232-244.
Tudor Baetu (2012). Emergence, Therefore Antireductionism? A Critique of Emergent Antireductionism. Biology and Philosophy 27 (3):433-448.
Alex Rosenberg (2001). Reductionism in a Historical Science. Philosophy of Science 68 (2):135-163.
Alex Rosenberg (1997). Reductionism Redux: Computing the Embryo. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 12 (4):445-470.
Alex Rosenberg (1997). Can Physicalist Antireductionism Compute the Embryo? Philosophy of Science 64 (4):371.
Alexander Rosenberg (2007). Reductionism (and Antireductionism) in Biology. In David L. Hull & Michael Ruse (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge University Press 349--368.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads136 ( #10,668 of 1,700,308 )
Recent downloads (6 months)48 ( #8,584 of 1,700,308 )
How can I increase my downloads?