Biological Theory 10 (3):253-262 (2015)

Isabella Sarto-Jackson
University of Vienna
Biological sciences have strived to adopt the conceptual framework of physics and have become increasingly quantitatively oriented, aiming to refute the assertion that biology appears unquantifiable, unpredictable, and messy. But despite all effort, biology is characterized by a paucity of quantitative statements with universal applications. Nonetheless, many biological disciplines—most notably molecular biology—have experienced an ascendancy over the last 50 years. The underlying core concepts and ideas permeate and inform many neighboring disciplines. This surprising success is probably not so much attributable to mathematical and statistical approaches in molecular biology, but rather to the preponderance of qualitative approaches, especially visualization. Visualizations can be afforded by quantitative research, but usually they rely on both, quantitative and qualitative research. I claim the following three features to be responsible for the unceasing zeal for using visualizations: visual representations facilitate reasoning, images can be cognitively processed in a “fast” manner, and abstractions of visual representations prompt conceptual advances. In summary, visualizations have largely contributed to the success of molecular biology by conveying its concepts to other disciplines, and at the same time, eclipsing mere quantitative approaches. However, visualizations also bear the risk of misinterpretation when traversing neighboring disciplines and even more so when pervading nonscientific domains
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s13752-015-0224-0
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,714
External links

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

Thinking About Mechanisms.Peter Machamer, Lindley Darden & Carl F. Craver - 2000 - Philosophy of Science 67 (1):1-25.
Scientific Perspectivism.Ronald N. Giere - 2006 - University of Chicago Press.

View all 34 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Visualizations in Mathematics.Kajsa Bråting & Johanna Pejlare - 2008 - Erkenntnis 68 (3):345 - 358.
A Puzzle About Visualization.Peter Langland-Hassan - 2011 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 10 (2):145-173.
Recent Opportunities for an Increasing Role for Physical Explanations in Biology.Michel Morange - 2011 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 42 (2):139-144.
Diagrams in Biology.Laura Perini - 2013 - The Knowledge Engineering Review 28 (3):273-286.
Homology in Comparative, Molecular, and Evolutionary Developmental Biology: The Radiation of a Concept.Ingo Brigandt - 2003 - Journal of Experimental Zoology (Molecular and Developmental Evolution) 299:9-17.
Molecular Biology and the Unity of Science.Harold Kincaid - 1990 - Philosophy of Science 57 (4):575-593.
Molecular Evolution: Concepts and the Origin of Disciplines.Edna Suárez-Díaz - 2009 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 40 (1):43-53.


Added to PP index

Total views
14 ( #717,149 of 2,462,646 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,387 of 2,462,646 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes