Reductionism article 27 May 2008 Two of my favourite philosophers, Ingo Brigandt and Alan Love, have just published an extremely useful and relatively complete summary essay on “Reductionism in Biology” at the Stanford Encyclopedia. They clearly identify the issues and confusions, which is what an encyclopedia article ought to do. If I have a criticism, it is that they do not attend, as most modern philosophy doesn’t, to the nineteenth century origins of this debate. I mean not only Mill, but Whewell, Jevons and all those who debated the relationship between scientific theories. Those who began the twentieth century debate knew that literature well. But then the nineteenth century is my milieu, so much so that I sometimes think I should retitle this blog Fin de Siecle Thoughts. Evolution
Accommodationism Accommodating Science overview 13 Mar 2014 I have done quite a lot of blogging under this heading lately so I thought it might be useful to get all the posts used in order: On beliefs Why do believers believe silly things? The function of denialism Why do believers believe THOSE silly things? The “developmental hypothesis” of… Read More
Evolution Genes – the language of God 4: Why genes aren’t a language 19 Jun 201410 Aug 2014 Genes – the language of God 0: Preface Genes – the language of God 1: Genes as Language Genes – the language of God 2: Other popular gene myths and metaphors Genes – the language of God 3: Why genes aren’t information Genes – the language of God 4: Why… Read More
Epistemology Modus Darwin and the *real* modus darvinii 2 Feb 2011 Elliot Sober has published a claim (Sober 1999, Sober 2008: §4.1, 265ff) that Darwin used, and we should too, a particular syllogism: similarity, ergo common ancestry. This cannot be right, for several reasons: logical, historical and inferential. First the logical, as this is rather vapid, and can be guarded against… Read More
Criticism at Evolving Thoughts is good, but criticism at the discussion thread on the “Reductionism in Biology” SEP entry is even better. Alan Love and I set up this discussion thread at the Philosophy of Biology Cafe to gather feedback on our SEP entry, which we will consider when we revise the article the next time. Your suggestion is quite relevant (and pertains to our section 2). May I ask that you repost it at the discussion thread, so that we can keep track of who made particular suggestions. And everyone else is encouraged to comment at the discussion thread on our SEP entry!
If I had sufficient data or knowledge to do so, I would. But displaying my ignorance is what this blog is for… I’ll keep a record of what I encounter, and let you guys know on that thread. For a start, though, obviously Mill’s System is a place to delve.