,
6 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
@CormacORafferty @vicluqmar @WiringTheBrain Whether philosophical contributions to a specific science should be interesting to its practitioners is an interesting question. Much of biology has become so technology-driven & theory-averse that conceptual insights are not recognised even if they address fundamental problems.
@CormacORafferty @vicluqmar @WiringTheBrain Examples: (1) Moreno, Mossio et al.’s work on an organisational theory of the organism. Addresses the fundamental question of what life is. Completely neglected.
@CormacORafferty @vicluqmar @WiringTheBrain Examples: (2) Wimsatt’s criticisms of reductionism in biology. Understanding the limitations of molecular biology & genetics would allow us to escape the intellectual monoculture that biology has become & address some really important research questions at different levels.
@CormacORafferty @vicluqmar @WiringTheBrain Examples: (3) Process philosophy (e.g. Dupré & @NicholsonHPBio) has had a very specific & crucial influence on my own research trajectory. Same for Bechtel’s view of mechanistic explanation. This is philosophy that has changed my biology in very concrete & productive ways.
@CormacORafferty @vicluqmar @WiringTheBrain @NicholsonHPBio And yet, none of these philosophical views are catching on. Not because philosophers don’t explain them well or keep to themselves, but only because biologists are not interested at all in any intellectual challenges to their preconceived notions. And that’s a real shame.
@CormacORafferty @vicluqmar @WiringTheBrain @NicholsonHPBio In fact, it limits progress in current biology. We don’t even see some of the most important research questions & challenges of our time within our own field. Or we think they are too risky to be tackled. Philosophy broadens our horizons… if we would only let it.
