The "new mechanistic philosophy" and michael polanyi: a comparison of two paradigms

Journal title EPISTEMOLOGIA
Author/s
Publishing Year 2015 Issue 2015/1 Language English
Pages 19 P. 114-132 File size 102 KB
DOI 10.3280/EPIS2015-001008
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The first part of this paper analyses the core tenets of the "new mechanistic philosophy" in view of the growth, over the last twenty years, of scientific literature on the mechanistic paradigm, especially within molecular biology and the neurosciences. This analysis yields an image of living organisms as systems which are mechanical, complex and selffounding. The second part of this paper deals with a core tenet of the mechanistic paradigm, namely that the explanation of a biological phenomenon coincides with the explanation of the mechanisms which constitute the phenomenon itself; this idea is criticised with reference to the contextualisation of the epistemological status of biology within Michael Polanyi’s theory of personal knowledge. The comparison between Polanyi’s thought and the mechanistic paradigm exposes the weaknesses of both: on the one hand, Polanyi’s theory of knowledge highlights aspects of the biologist’s work that are overlooked by mechanistic conceptions; on the other hand, the idea that biology includes a kind of knowledge which is tacit or untranslatable entails a series of problems for scientific research. In order to avoid these problems, the concept of mechanism must be re-examined, especially from a methodological point of view.

Keywords: Mechanistic paradigm, mechanism, complex system, organism, Polanyi, finality principle.

  1. Allen G.E. (2005). Mechanism, vitalism and organicism in late nineteenth and twentieth-century biology: the importance of historical context, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and the Biomedical Sciences, 36, pp. 261-283.
  2. Bechtel W. (2006). Discovering Cell Mechanisms: The Creation of Modern Cell Biology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  3. Alessandrini A., Gavazzo P., Picco C., Facci P. (2008). Voltage-Induced Morphological Modifications in Oocyte Membranes Containing Exogenous K1 Channels Studied by Electrochemical Scanning Force Microscopy, Microscopy Research and Technique, 71, pp. 274-278.
  4. Bechtel W. (2008). Mental mechanisms: Philosophical perspectives on cognitive neuroscience, London, Routledge.
  5. Bechtel W. (2010). The Downs and Ups of Mechanistic Research: Circadian Rhythm Research as an Exemplar, Erkenntnis, 73, pp. 313-328.
  6. Bechtel W., Richardson R.C. (1993). Discovering Complexity: Decomposition and Localization as Strategies in Scientific Research, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
  7. Braillard P.A. (2010). Systems Biology and Mechanistic Framework, Hist. Phil. Life Sci., 32, pp. 43-62.
  8. Buzzoni M. (2008). Thought experiment in the natural sciences, Würzburg, Königshausen & Neumann.
  9. Buzzoni M. (2014). The Agency Theory of Causality, Anthropomorphism, and Simultaneity, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 28(4), pp. 375-395.
  10. Buzzoni M. (2015). Teleology and Mechanism in Biology. In Bertolaso M. (ed.), The Future of Scientific Practice: ‘Bio-Techno-Logos’, London, Pickering and Chatto, pp. 147-159. Crane T. (2001). The significance of emergence. In Gillett C., Loewer B. (eds.), Physicalism and its discontents, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 207-224.
  11. Craver C. (2001). Role Functions, Mechanisms, and Hierarchy, Philosophy of Science, 68, pp. 53-74.
  12. Craver C., Darden L. (2001). Discovering Mechanisms in Neurobiology. In Machamer P., Grush R., McLaughlin P. (eds.), Theory and Method in the Neurosciences, Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press.
  13. Darden L., Craver C. (2002). Strategies in the Interfield Discovery of the Mechanism of Protein Synthesis, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and the Biomedical Sciences, 33, pp. 1-28.
  14. Darden L. (2002). Strategies for Discovering Mechanisms, Philosophy of Science, 69, pp. S354-S365.
  15. Darden L. (2008). Thinking Again about Biological Mechanisms, Philosophy of Science, 75, pp. 958-969.
  16. Dyer B.D. (1989). Symbiosis and organismal boundaries, American Zoologist, 29, pp. 1085-1093.
  17. Echeverria E.J. (1981). Criticism and Commitment: Major Themes in Contemporary ‘postcritical’ Philosophy, Amsterdam, Rodopi.
  18. El-Hani C.N., Emmeche C. (2000). On some theoretical grounds for an organism-centered biology: property emergence, supervenience, and downward causation, Theory in Bioscience, 119, pp. 234-275.
  19. Glennan S. (1996). Mechanisms and the Nature of Causation, Erkenntnis, 44, pp. 49-71.
  20. Glennan S. (2002). Rethinking Mechanistic Explanation, Philosophy of Science, 69, pp. S342-S353.
  21. Glennan S. (2010). Ephemeral Mechanisms and Historical Explanation, Erkenntnis, 72, pp. 251-266.
  22. Kaufman S.A. (1970). Articulation of parts explanation in biology and the rational search for
  23. them, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 257-272.
  24. Kauffman S.A. (2000). Investigations, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  25. Jacob J. (1986). Teleology and Reduction in Biology, Biology and Philosophy, 1, pp. 389-399.
  26. Kim J. (2006). Emergence: Core ideas and issue, Synthese, 151, pp. 547-559.
  27. Laubichler M.D., Wagner G.P. (2000). Organism and character decomposition: steps towards an integrative theory of biology, Philosophy of Science, 67, pp. S289-S300.
  28. Lee S.Y., Lee A., Chen J.R., MacKinnon R. (2005). Structure of the KvAP voltage-dependent K1 channel and its dependence on the lipid membrane, Proc. National Acad. Sci. USA, 102, pp. 15441-15446.
  29. Lennox J. (1993). Darwin was a teleologist, Biology and Philosophy, 8, pp. 409-422.
  30. Li-Smerin Y., Swartz K.J. (2001). Helical Structure of the COOH Terminus of S3 and Its Contribution to the Gating Modifier Toxin Receptor in Voltage-gated Ion Channels, The Journal of General Physiology, 117, pp. 205-217.
  31. Lorenz K. (1941-1942). Kants Lehre vom Apriorischen im Lichte gegenwärtiger Biologie, Blätter für deutsche Philosophie, 15, pp. 94-125.
  32. Machamer P., Darden L., Craver C.F. (2000). Thinking about Mechanism, Philosophy of Science, 67, pp. 1-25.
  33. Machamer P. (2004). Activities and causation: The metaphysics and epistemology of mechanisms, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 18, pp. 27-39.
  34. Mayr E. (1988). Toward a New Philosophy of Biology, Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press. Mayr E. (2004). What makes Biology Unique? Considerations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline (trad. it. L’unicità della biologia. Sull’autonomia di una disciplina scientifica,
  35. Milano, Raffaello Cortina Editore, 2005). Moss L. (2012). Is the philosophy of mechanism philosophy enough?, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and the Biomedical Sciences, 43, pp. 164-172.
  36. Nagel E. (1977). Teleology Revisited, Journal of Philosophy, 74, pp. 261-301.
  37. Nicholson D.J. (2012). The concept of mechanism in biology, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and the Biomedical Sciences, 43, pp. 152-153.
  38. Nicholson D.J. (2013). Organisms ≠ Machines, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and the Biomedical Sciences, 44, pp. 669-678.
  39. Pepper J.W., Herron M.D. (2008). Does Biology Need an Organism Concept?, Biol. Review, 83, pp. 621-627.
  40. Polanyi M. (1958). Personal Knowledge. Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  41. Polanyi M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  42. Polanyi M. (1969). Knowing and Being, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  43. Quarfood M. (2006). Kant on biological teleology: towards two-level interpretation, Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences, 37, pp. 735-747.
  44. Salmon W. (1989). Four Decades of Scientific Explanation. In Kitcher P., Salmon W. (eds.), Scientific Explanation, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 13, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, pp. 3-219.
  45. Salmon W. (1998). Causality and Explanation, New York, Oxford University Press.
  46. Sartenaer O. (2013). Neither metaphysical dichotomy nor pure identity: Clarifying the emergentist creed, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and the Biomedical Sciences, 44, pp. 365-373.
  47. Schaffner K. (1993). Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
  48. Schmidt D., Qiu-Xing J., MacKinnon R. (2006). Phospholipids and the origin of cationic gating charges in voltage sensors, Nature, 444(7), pp. 775-779.
  49. Skipper R.A. Jr., Millstein R.L. (2005). Thinking about Evolutionary Mechanisms: Natural Selection, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36, pp. 327-347.
  50. Tabery J.G. (2004). Synthesizing Activities and Interactions in the Concept of a Mechanism, Philosophy of Science, 71, pp. 1-15.
  51. Wang J.M., Roh S.H., Sunghwan K., Lee C.W., Jae I.K., Swartz J.K. (2004). Molecular Surface of Tarantula Toxins Interacting with Voltage Sensors in Kv Channels, Journal for General Physiology, 123, pp. 455-467.
  52. Woese C.R. (2004). A new biology for a new century, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 68, pp. 173-186.
  53. Woodward J. (2002). What is a Mechanism? A Counterfactual Account, Philosophy of Science, 69, pp. S366-S377.
  54. Woodward J. (2003). Making Things Happen. A Theory of Causal Explanation, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  55. Woodward J. (2009). “Agency and Interventionist theories”. In Beebee H., Menzies P., Hitchcock C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Causation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 234-262.
  56. Woodward J. (2010). Causation in biology: stability, specificity, and the choice of levels of explanation, Biology and Philosophy, 25, pp. 287-318.
  57. Woodward J. (2011). Mechanisms Revisited, Synthese, 183, pp. 409-427.

, The "new mechanistic philosophy" and michael polanyi: a comparison of two paradigms in "EPISTEMOLOGIA" 1/2015, pp 114-132, DOI: 10.3280/EPIS2015-001008