Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:37:49.845Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biological Individuality and Scientific Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Karen Kovaka
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I consider the relationship between scientific practice and the philosophical debate surrounding biological individuality. I argue for the sensitivity account, on which biologists do not require a resolution to the individuality debate. This view puts me in disagreement with much of the literature on biological individuality, where it has become common to claim that there is a relationship of dependence between biologists’ conceptions of individuality and the quality of their empirical work.

Type
Biology
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 82 , Issue 5 , December 2015 , pp. 1092 - 1103
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Clarke, Ellen. 2010. “The Problem of Biological Individuality.” Biological Theory 5 (4): 312–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Ellen 2013. “The Multiple Realizability of Biological Individuals.” Journal of Philosophy 110 (8): 413–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupre, John, and O’Malley, Maureen. 2009. “Varieties of Living Things: Life at the Intersection of Lineage and Metabolism.” Philosophy and Theory in Biology 1:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, Dedre. 1983. “Structure Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy.” Cognitive Science 7:155–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Nelson. 1972. Problems and Projects. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Griesemer, James. 2014. “Reproduction and the Scaffolded Development of Hybrids.” In Developing Scaffolds in Evolution, Culture, and Cognition, ed. Caporael, Linda, Griesemer, James, and Wimsatt, William, 23–55. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haber, Matthew. 2013. “Colonies Are Individuals: Revisiting the Superorganism Revival.” In From Groups to Individuals: Evolution and Emerging Individuality, ed. Bouchard, Frederic and Huneman, Phillippe, 195–217. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Brian, and Linksvayer, Timothy. 2010. “Deconstructing the Superorganism: Social Physiology, Groundplans, and Social Genomics.” Quarterly Review of Biology 85 (1): 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nersessian, Nancy. 1992. “How Do Scientists Think? Capturing the Dynamics of Conceptual Change in Science.” In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, ed. Giere, Ronald N., 3–45. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald N. 2008. Creating Scientific Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pepper, John, and Herron, Matthew. 2008. “Does Biology Need an Organism Concept?” Biological Reviews 83:621–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruiz-Mirazo, Kepa, Etxeberria, Arantza, Morena, Alvara, and Ibanez, Jesus. 2000. “Organisms and Their Place in Biology.” Theory and Biosciences 119:209–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santelices, Bernabe. 1999. “How Many Kinds of Individual Are There?” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14 (4): 152–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, Michael. 2012. “Getting Serious about Similarity.” Philosophy of Science 79 (5): 785–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, David Sloan, and Sober, Elliot. 1989. “Reviving the Superorganism.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 136 (3): 337–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zilber-Rosenberg, Ilana, and Rosenberg, Eugene. 2008. “Role of Microorganisms in the Evolution of Animals and Plants: The Hologenome Theory of Evolution.” FEMS Microbiology Reviews 32 (5): 723–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed