Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-25T00:39:48.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adaptive Design, Contingency, and Ontological Principles for Limited Beings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Daniel S. Brooks
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Transcendental arguments are not popular in contemporary philosophy of science. They are typically seen as antinaturalistic and incapable of providing explanatory force in accounting for natural phenomena. However, when viewed as providing (certain types of) intelligibility to complicated concepts used in scientific reasoning, a concrete and productive role is recoverable for transcendental reasoning in philosophy of science. In this article I argue that the resources, and possibly the need, for such a role are available within a thoroughly naturalistic framework garnered from the work of Hasok Chang and William Wimsatt.

Type
Realism and Epistemic Humility
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 88 , Issue 5 , December 2021 , pp. 871 - 881
Copyright
Copyright 2021 by the Philosophy of Science Association. All rights reserved.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beatty, John 1995. “The Evolutionary Contingency Thesis.” In Concepts, Theories, and Rationality in the Biological Sciences, ed. Wolters, G. and Lennox, J., 45–81. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Beatty, John. 2006. “Replaying Life’s Tape.” Journal of Philosophy 103 (7): 336–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beloussov, Lev, and Gordon, Richard. 2018. “Two Ways for Interpreting Driesch’s Law: ‘Positional Information’ and Morphogenetic Fields.” BioSystems 173:7–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandon, Robert. 2005. “Evolutionary Modules: Conceptual Analyses and Empirical Hypotheses.” In Modularity: Understanding the Development and Evolution of Natural Complex Systems, ed. Callebaut, W. and Rasskin-Gutman, D., 51–60. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brooks, Daniel S., and Eronen, Markus I.. 2018. “The Significance of ‘Levels of Organization’ for Scientific Research: A Heuristic Approach.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science C 68:34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callebaut, Werner. 2005. “Again, What Philosophy of Biology Is Not.” Acta Biotheoretica 53:93–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callebaut, Werner. 2007a. “Herbert Simon’s Silent Revolution.” Biological Theory 2 (1): 76–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callebaut, Werner. 2007b. “Transcendental Niche Construction.” Acta Biotheoretica 55:73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Čapek, Daniel, and Müller, Patrick. 2019. “Positional Information and Tissue Scaling during Development and Regeneration.” Development 146 (24). https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.177709.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, Hasok. 2008. “Contingent Transcendental Arguments for Metaphysical Principles.” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 63:113–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Hasok. 2009. “Ontological Principles and the Intelligibility of Epistemic Activities.” In Scientific Understanding: Philosophical Perspectives, ed. Regt, H. W. de, Leonelli, S., and Eigner, K., 64–82. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Hasok. 2014. “Epistemic Activities and Systems of Practice: Units of Analysis in Philosophy of Science after the Practice Turn.” In Science after the Practice Turn in the Philosophy, History, and Social Studies of Science, ed. Soler, L., Zwart, S., Israel-Jost, V., and Lynch, M., 67–79. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Driesch, Hans. 1899. Die Lokalisation morphogenetischer Vorgänge: Ein Beweis vitalistischen Geschehens. Leipzig: Engelmann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driesch, Hans. 1908. The Science and Philosophy of the Organism: The Gifford Lectures Delivered before the University of Aberdeen in the Year 1907 and 1908. 2 vols. London: Black.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1992. “The Naturalists Return.” Philosophical Review 101 (1): 53–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddy, Penelope. 2001. “Naturalism: Friends and Foes.” Noûs 35 (15): 37–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppenheimer, Jane M. 1970. “Hans Driesch and the Theory and Practice of Embryonic Transplantation.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 44 (4): 378–82.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. 1969. “Epistemology Naturalized.” In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, 69–90. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, Siegfried. 2011. “Mathematics and Biology: A Kantian View on the History of Pattern Formation Theory.” Development Genes and Evolution 221:255–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Starr, Tyler N., Flynn, Julia M., Mishra, Parul, Bolon, Daniel N. A., and Thornton, Joseph W.. 2018. “Pervasive Contingency and Entrenchment in a Billion Years of Hsp90 Evolution.” PNAS 115 (17): 4453–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szathmáry, Eörs, and Smith, John Maynard. 1995. “The Major Evolutionary Transitions.” Nature 374:227–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wimsatt, William C. 2007. Re-engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings: Piecewise Approximations to Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, James. 2003. Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar