Talk:Philosophy of biology

Biologists with an interest in the philosophical aspects of biology

With the the exception of Mayr, none of this list has any track record in philosophical discussion, whether of biology or more broadly. (Check their wiki entries and/or bibliography) Most - I except E O Wilson - can best be described as popularisers of science, however eminent, reflective and successful but none has added (or even tried to add) to the philosophical understanding of biology. Nor has any illuminated, in any systematic way, broader philosophical concerns using biological thought or findings. I am not impuning them in their own fields, (they include some of my heroes) but philosophy is a bit more serious than this list suggests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony164 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The above comment is not entirely accurate. In particular, Richard Dawkins, Richard Lewontin, and Stephen Jay Gould have published articles that easily count as philosophy of biology, and all three have had a huge influence on the field. Both Gould and Lewontin have even co-authored articles with philosophers of biology (the former, with Lisa Lloyd, and the latter, with Andre Ariew). --Inrm88 (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Teleological language in biology

I removed the following sentences:

• "And yet biologists continue to use apparently teleological language in their explanations of adaptations. According to Darwinism, organisms act "as if" they have purposes, specifically survival and reproduction, because organisms that don't act that way have been weeded out (see the selfish gene). So Darwinism hasn't expunged teological language altogether."

Mainstream biology doesn't regard evolution as teleological. If biologists speak of evolution in such terms, they're speaking in short-hand, anthropomorphizing events for ease of conceptualization and communication. For example, a scientist might say a ball at the edge of a sink "wants" to go the center of the sink (gravity), but he would not mean that the ball has will.--Nectarflowed ^(talk) 14:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mainstreams are always strong but not always right. It is now 2014, and things have changed. And it was high time for a change. See Karl Popper's Medawar Lecture of 1986 (!) and the dispute with Max Perutz. For this debate and a lot of new arguments see - if I may cite myself: H.J. Niemann "Karl Popper and the Two New Secrets of Life" (2014). --hjn (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

There have been good arguments presented by Denis Walsh for teleological evolutionary explanation.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

"Epistemological and methodological"

I'm not clear on what it means to call reductionism and/or holism "epistemological and methodological". I could go into my problems with the phrase here but, instead, I'll just invite you to explain why its there. --Christofurio 02:51, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding epistemology, reductionism and holism seem to me to be about whether phenomena are known better as parts or as wholes. Can phenomena mentally be reduced to their parts without losing information? These seem to be fundamental views on the nature of knowledge and phenomena and the best approach to knowledge and phenomena.

As for methodology, reductionist and holistic views create different practices, procedures, and rules: either emphasizing breaking phenomena down to their parts or emphasizing analysis on macro levels/through multiple approaches or levels. For example, Ken Wilber's methodology for explaining the nature of consciousness is to draw from both neuroscience and many different philosophical or spiritual traditions. I think this qualifies as a more holistic methodology than, say, approaching the problem with only neuroscience.

On the other hand, I think in some uses, holism may also connote a larger belief system, one feature of which, for example, might be belief in something along the lines of intelligent design.--Nectarflowed ^(talk) 08:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's part of my concern about the phrase. More generally, I think that the terms can represent metaphysical, even ethical positions. Holists often speak as if reductionism eliminates what they value about the systems they study, which suggests their concerns are ethical at heart. At any rate, I'll see what I can do about re-working the sentence in question in a way you will find satisfactory. --Christofurio 21:43, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Popper quote

Bad citation, it distorts the meaning. Creationstst buther Popper in this way. See here for what he really said, and how he eventually recanted. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Cunt?

Third line 'Overview.' Not sure what it's meant to say. The person who originally wrote it, or someone who read the original, should maybe correct it. Doesn't quite flow as is.

Porcupines, vultures, mongooses, etc.

I notice that there is a reference to the question "what is a species?" Where is that cited? I am very intereted in learning more about how philosophers of science have spoken to this issue, and came here for more information, but the article says only this about it. Also, do they really stop with "species"? What about genea, families, etc.? Why is the article porcupine allowed to include all animals with that basic form, regardless of the fact that they are two distinct taxonomic groups, while vulture is not, and mongoose in flux? None of these have a Greek synomym. If the Masai giraffe, for example, were to turn out to have evolved separately, is it still a giraffe? As far as Wikipedia is concerned? People don't agree as to whether cetacea should merge with whale, as it includes dolphins and porpoises. You can't easily cite the true definition of the English word "whale", which seems to have more to do with shape and size than common ancestor. Where can I find the Biological Philosophy on this, and why doesn't this article help me find out? Chrisrus (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a list of philosophers of biology?

I looked briefly at the entries for Philosophy of Physics and Philosophy of Chemistry. No one else has a section listing people's names. It strikes me as a little pathetic; I'd recommend eliminating this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrf217 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography

I've chopped the rather absurdly long "bibliography". Seems such a list is rather WP:OR - what source says those are notable above other possibilities. I've also cut the redlinks from the philosophers of biology list as there is no evidence provided of notability with no wiki article. Vsmith (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

V, notablity is a criterion for the creation or keeping of an article, not for inclusion in a list in an article. I think you have made some somewhat questionable deletions here. Do you have some valid reason for removing that bib and all those philosophers from the list? Greg Bard (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If you feel the bibliography list is needed you are free to re-add. Just note that the bibliography list was some 15K and longer than the remaining article. Undue weight perhaps.

A list of red linked names needs some form of verification, without some form of verification the names are simply WP:OR. A name with a valid link to a sourced article can be easily checked. I also removed some blue names that were linked to a dab page or someone else with the same name, hence an invalid link. But, hey - re-add what you wish ... with appropriate sources of course to avoid OR. Vsmith (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You've got a mish-mash of things going on here. First of all, just because a claim doesn't have a source provided, that is not what OR is. OR is a claim that is not accepted by academians, but is being put forward on WP. A list doesn't consist of any particular claim. Red links help build the WP. They are how we know what articles are missing. The length of content alone doesn't create a WP:Weight issue either. So I guess my next question is, do you have some special proficiency or knowledge in the area of philosophy of biology or are you just shooting from the hip here? Do you have some good reason to think any any one of these links are to non-philosophers of biology. If you do, then please do remove them. Otherwise just leave it for the philosophy department. A blanket demand for sources of a list is pretty heavy handed don't you think? Why don't you look into each one individually and bring up any issues you discover? Take it easy on the lists, and save the demands for sources for actual claims in the form of statements made in the text. Really the "claim" that is being made is that these are the names of philosophers of biology. So do you have a reason to think any of them are not or are you just practicing unfortunate ideological deletionism for deletionism's sake? Greg Bard (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I just took a careful look at the content you deleted. I.e. after having questioned only your method, I am now questioning the actual result. It looks like you have deleted a whole useful and valuable bibliography. A bibliography alone isn't OR. You are completely wrong in your concept of what OR is. That bibliography isn't pushing some view or other at all. If the bibliography was being used to push one view or another, then you might have a point. It isn't being used to push any view at all. It's a pretty substantial and diverse collection of academic sources. So I really have to question your action here. Greg Bard (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, feel free to re-add anything you wish. But, please check the destination of any blue names you do re-add. Cheers. Vsmith (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Why I added Popper to the 26 philosophers of biology

Among some 26 philosophers of biology there has been no Popper included up to today: this is sad and terribly wrong. Does nobody know of his life long contributions to evolutionary biology? See Niemann, Karl Popper and the Two New Secrets of Life, Tuebingen (Mohr Siebeck) 2014, and there about the many contributions of Popper to biology. --hjn (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Major changes

I'm making some major changes to the article and wanted to let people know. The first major change I'm making is combining the "reductionism, holism, and vitalism" section and "an autonomous philosophy of biology section" into a new section titled "biological laws and autonomy of biology." I think this makes the article clearer and is more in line with contemporary research in the field. For instance, "vitalism" is no longer a mainstream position, while the autonomy of biology and whether there are biological laws are relatively prominent debates (I can post some SEP or philpapers links if this point is controversial, but I don't think it is). I'm also making some changes to the wording from these two sections in order to make it more clear for readers without background knowledge in the subject.

In addition, I'm adding a section on Sharon Street's evolutionary debunking argument and Copp's response. I think this is an important omission from the page right now--especially given that the opening section talks about ethical and epistemic implications of biology but doesn't have any examples of these implications.

J.S.Hirsh (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)