History and philosophy of science.

Chair: Bud Donahou, Northwest Community College 

Vice-chair: Maritza Abril, University of Southern Mississippi

FRIDAY MORNING

Meeting Room 3

8:30 THE ADVANTAGES OF DEVELOPMENTAL SYSTEMS IN BIOLOGY

Court Lewis, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39406

Many geneticists, and many in the scientific community, accept the notion that the genotype (genetic makeup) is the sole cause of an organism's phenotype (physical attributes). However, developmental biology, particularly developmental constructionism, has gained considerable acceptance in the world of science by putting forth a compelling argument for developmental systems, which play down the primary role of DNA in development and support a more relational and contextual setting between the organism and its environment. I will argue that the developmental systems approach (i.e. developmental constructionism) is an acceptable view in both biology and philosophy of biology. To prove my argument, I will examine the five tenets of the developmental constructionist challenge, proposed in Paul E. Griffiths and Robin D. Knight's article "What is the Developmentalist Challenge?" The goal of the examination will be to illustrate the advantages of developmental systems in biology over the more accepted approach of placing DNA as the primary mover in genetic development. In addition to Griffiths and Knight's essay, I will address the major criticisms, concerning developmental systems, raised by Kenneth Schaffner, Martin Mahner, and Mario Bunge. After illustrating the criticisms of developmental constructionism, I will conclude that it is not only an acceptable but also advantageous approach for both biologists and philosophers of biology.

9:00 ON THE CONCEPT OF 'A LIFE': A BIOPHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS

Malachi Martin* and Michael Dodge*, University of Southern Mississippi, MS 39406 and University of Mississippi, MS 38677

The conceptual notion of a life, despite receiving little overt biophilosophical attention, remains intriguing nonetheless. Philosopher Peter van Inwagen, in his book Material Beings, asks: "What is a life?" For philosopher John Locke, each living thing's constituents participate in a common life, viz. the life of the whole organism. Jack Wilson, in his book Biological Individuality, is concerned with the individuation of lives. Perhaps the most general account of a life would include both the vertical and horizontal spatiotemporal dimensions of a biological organism. In this presentation we will explore all of the nuances of the question of a life. Many pertinent biophilosophical considerations ensue. The ontological question is of what sorts of things lives are. For example, are lives mereological sums? Are lives events? The epistemological question of what exactly our purported knowledge of lives consists of beckons us to consider how we can know something about a life. Ethical considerations impel us to ponder the moral dimensions of biological birth and death as well as the value we impart to kinds of bioentities (both human and nonhuman). Folk ideas express usages of a life that typically convey social realities or potentialities (enter the notion of "building a life"). A precise biophilosophical grasp would anchor the social to the biological. Armed with philosophical scrutiny and general biological knowledge as a guide, it will be our goal to seek to attain some precision on the concept of a life.

9:30 CONTINUITY VS. CONTEXTUALITY: THE CONTRIBUTION OF ANNELIESE MAIER (1905-1971) TO THE HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE.

Michael Fitzgerald, Independent Scholar, Hattiesburg, MS 39402

In this presentation I will discuss the contribution of Anneliese Maier to the History and Philosophy of Science. A great conundrum for the History and Philosophy of Science is how to evaluate the contribution of medieval natural philosophers, if any, to the history and philosophy to what is called modern science. Modern science is typically thought by many contemporary scientists to have begun ex nihilo with the rejection of medieval Aristotelian natural philosophy in the 17th century, the rise of atomism, and the innovations of Galileo that placed the new scientific world-view on a more precise mathematical footing. The great French physicist Pierre Duhem, with his turn of the 20th century studies of pre- Da Vincian physics, shocked modern scientists by arguing that what was referred to as modern science was merely a continuation of developments in late-medieval natural philosophy. Duhem argued that modern science actually arose in the 14th century, in the cosmologies and mechanics of the Parisian Masters: John Buridan and Nicolas Oreseme. Buridan's "Theory of Impetus" and Oreseme's diagrammatic presentations of mathematical results were seen by Duhem as anticipations of the Law of Inertia and Cartesian analytic geometry. Anneliese Maier criticizes Duhem position as anachonistic because it failed to take into account the 14th philosophic context of Buridan's and Oreseme's views. She concluded the 14th century thinkers may have indeed rejected particular claims of Aristotelian natural philosophy, but never its basic philosophical principles, e.g. hylemorphism etc. The final break only occurred in the 17th century. The contributions of the medieval natural philosophers, she maintains, has to be understood within that context of its basic Aristotelian principles.

10:00 Break

10:30 PARADIGMS OF LIFE: HISTORICAL CONCEPTIONS AND EVOLUTIONS

Michael Dodge, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677

Humanity has often pondered the 'nature' of life: What is it? What is its origin? How do we identify it? These questions have snared the attention of scholars throughout time, and it is the intention of this presentation to elucidate at least a minority of the more historically potent conceptualizations. From Plato and Aristotle to Darwin, Mendel, and beyond, the concepts surrounding life and its origins have been constructed, traded, altered, construed, disassembled, shaped, and drawn by philosophers and scientists to fit the body of knowledge native to their respective eras. One notable caveat: the question, "what is life" is entirely distinguishable from the sibling question, "what a life is". Though the two are assuredly interrelated, this presentation focuses on the former inquiry, relegating many pertinent biophilosophical questions to a secondary, albeit no less important position, relative the historical instances here delineated. Are the properties of life purely natural and physical, or is a supranatural component necessary--an element that imports elan vital to an otherwise empty husk? Equally important are the origins of life, and theories like spontaneous generation, 'divine' creation, random combination, and evolutionary competition, will all receive proper evaluation. Lastly, I intend to emphasize that like 'life' itself, humanity's answers to these questions are hardly static; indeed, they inch serpiginously forward, tempting each generation to sit satisfied with the triumph of knowledge that follows from solid models, yet reminding us all that such models have often been built on shaky foundations.

11:00 THE UTILITY OF EXTENSIONAL COMPLEXITY MODELING FOR THE BIOLOGICAL SPECIES AS A NATURAL KIND

Kenneth J. Curry* and Paula Smithka, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39406

We frequently view the world as hierarchically structured. Stanley Salthe has developed a "scalar hierarchy" model which we apply here to analysis of the biological species. We take biological species to be natural kinds that fit specifically the notion of a homeostatic property cluster kind (HPCK) as proposed by Richard Boyd. Our refinement of Boyd's views cast species as a coherent group of organisms characterized by a lineage and identified by a level of cohesion conferred by both literal and figurative homeostasis. Extensional complexity, which the scalar hierarchy models, refers to a part to whole nested hierarchy characterized by intransitivity across levels, i.e., processes associated with entities at a lower level do not affect a higher level, although collectively amplified processes at a lower level do perturb the higher level and each level places constraints on adjacent levels. Seen in this model of scalar hierarchy, homeostatic properties of individual, organismal physiology that constrain an individual have no affect on homeostatic constraints at population levels which in turn have no impact on the species level, but can perturb and constrain each higher level. These constraints are seen as a result of differences in scale. The scalar hierarchy model allows us to understand species as a complex system where we analyze the parts without losing sight of the whole.

11:30 STRING THEORY AND AUM 

S. Kant Vajpayee, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg MS 39406

Our desire to understand the universe remains strong and unfulfilled. Both science and philosophy continue to struggle to get us the ultimate answer to the perennial question: whether we have evolved or been created. Science has made great strides in the last hundred years. But the creationists have not given up. The latest theoretical physics thought, claimed to be capable of explaining the universe--simply and elegantly--is called string theory. It is being cultivated as the "theory of everything". It is based on a fundamental string of finite spatial extent, which could be open or closed like a loop. Everything in the universe is a manifestation of these enormously tiny strings. The original ideas, born some twenty years ago, have been modified into a superstring theory. The basis of the theory is the variety of vibrations emanating from the fundamental strings and their interactions. This presentation will attempt to link the underlying principle of the string theory with the sound that is created when the Sanskrit word "aum" is spoken. "Aum" is pervasive in Hinduism; it is associated with all its scriptures, hymns, and "mantras". It is considered the origin of the universe. It may be that the vibrations generated by reciting "aum" and the vibrations of the string are one and the same thing. If so, the "rishis" of Hinduism-probably the oldest religion of the human race--will be proved to be philosophical scientists of the first order, possessing divine qualities.

FRIDAY AFTERNOON

Meeting Room 3

1:00 THE UTILITY OF INTENSIONAL COMPLEXITY MODELING FOR THE BIOLOGICAL SPECIES AS A NATURAL KIND

Paula Smithka* and Kenneth J. Curry, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39406

The biological species taken as a natural kind is a conceptual construct rather than a concrete particular (individual). The construct is refined by interpreting it through Richard Boyd's homeostatic property cluster kind (HPCK) which imposes figurative and literal homeostasis on individuals within the species to explain the necessary level of cohesion that seems to characterize a species. Stanley Salthe has developed a model he calls a specification hierarchy (SPH). SPH models what Salthe calls "intensional complexity" which is characterized by a group of embedded classes organized by layers of intensional definition. Levels closer to the scale of the observer have more detailed definitions and are privileged. A major feature of SPH is the logical transitivity across levels. The observer simultaneously perceives an entity at any level (e.g., an individual oak tree simultaneously as a set of cells, an autonomous system, part of a forest (population), and a member of Quercus sp.) Levels in SPH are constrained by law-like processes, ontologically, but it is important to remember that SPH is an epistemic model. One aspect of SPH is that it casts the levels as developmental stages with irreversible trajectories of individuation (think of the incipient species becoming a [humanly] recognized species which ultimately gives rise to another species lineage). It is the utility of this model for HPCK that will be investigated.

1:30 INTUITION, SCALE, AND NOMINAL AND PARTICULATE THINGS: THE CONFUSING TERMINOLOGY OF PLANT PATHOLOGY

Maritza Abril* and Kenneth J. Curry, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39406

The language of science requires an arsenal of precise terms, the meanings of which are held in common agreement by all members of a given discourse community, in order to effect useful dialogue. Engaging correctly in this specialized discourse can be a daunting task for the professional and novice alike. Plant pathology is an excellent example in which technical language is needed to describe the various relationships between host plants and their pathogens. However, the technical use of terms sometimes conflicts with our intuitive understanding of these terms. Here we consider the notions of host resistance and fungal pathogenicity considering the technical uses of the terms aggressiveness, virulence, and pathogenicity applied to fungal parasites and the terms susceptibility/resistance, sensitivity/tolerance, and vulnerability applied to plant hosts. The issues that confound the use of these terms even among plant pathologists is found in distinctions between the technical and common meanings of these terms, differences in scale between whole organismal and molecular assessment of disease processes, and the subtle confusion between nominal and particulate things (e.g., virulence is the absence of a gene product, and therefore, is in name only, not a particulate thing; avirulence, which common sense indicates is the absence of something, is a gene product, a particulate thing). We suggest that the road to clarity starts by understanding the source of confusion.

2:00 CLADISTICS, A SYSTEMATICS METHODOLODY REALIZING DARWIN'S "GREAT TREE OF LIFE"

John D. Davis, Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Jackson MS 39202

Darwin's 1859 statement that "community of descent is the hidden bond which naturalists have been unconsciously seeking and not some unknown plan of creation, and the mere putting together and separating objects more or less alike" redefined natural groups of organisms as historical entities, evolutionary branches of "the tree of life," and not just an assemblage of "similar" creatures. Beginning with Ernst Haeckel, attempts to develop a truly natural or "treelike" classification system continued for a century, but no coherent, testable methodology appeared until the German entomologist, Willi Hennig, developed Cladistics in 1950. Cladistics establishes monophyletic groups including a common ancestor and all of its descendants. Organisms are grouped by relative recency of common ancestry. A group of organisms all descended from a common ancestor forms a clade, or "branch". Group branching diagrams or cladograms are constructed using features most recently derived (Synapormorphies) rather than shared primitive characters (Plesiomorphies). Character states are determined by comparisons with closely related outgroups. The history of cladistics includes Hennig's initial work, the development of statistical methods for determing the most parsimonious arrangement, conflict with "traditional" and numerical sytematists, controversy over application to fossils, and such "triumphs" as the reclassification of birds as living dinosaurs! Cladistic organizing principles are now "making sense of such "difficult" groups of organisms as spiders as systematists trace out Darwin's "Great tree of life".

2:30 DOES NATURAL SELECTION EXPLAIN FUNCTION?

Robert Waltzer, Belhaven College, Jackson, MS 39202

It is claimed that natural selection can provide an analysis of the teleological concept of function strictly in terms of efficient causation (Buller). I want to challenge this view in four ways. I first want to consider a thought experiment in which a hypothetical designer directs natural selection. I will try to show from this that the source of the function in organisms is derived from the designer and not the process itself. Secondly, natural selection expressed without tautology cannot use the directional terms "fitness" and "advantage", which are required for an account of function. Thirdly, "fitness" and "advantage" are based upon a potentially changeable environment. Therefore under different circumstances what was once an advantage might then become a disadvantage. Such relativism is not sufficient as a framework for function. Fourthly, one must ask the question, "Is natural selection itself based solely upon efficient causation?" In natural selection there is 1) a living organism 2) which fits the environment, 3) is able to extract resources, 4) can reproduce, and 5) has variability which can lead to an improvement. If any of these factors were missing, natural selection would not occur. Their presence requires some explanation other than "that's the way it is". From this I conclude that natural selection as a source of teleology related to function is not adequate. Function makes more sense as a result of intention which can only come from an agent such as a designer.

3:00 Divisional Business Meeting

3:30 "SCIENTIFIC" CREATIONISM AND THE END OF MODERN SCIENCE

George Phillips, Artesia, Mississippi 39736

Modern science and the scientific method are under attack, and the assault threatens centuries of advancement in reason and rationalism. The threat to science and reason comes from Creationist apologetics (CA)--a growing movement among Evangelical fundamentalists holding that the Christian Bible, interpreted literally, has supreme authority over all instruction including the ability to observe and interpret natural phenomena. CA is reaching the Christian consumer in the form of books, A/V media, WWWeb sites, "science" museums, home schools, church "educational" programs, and itinerant speakers via a familiar apologetics crusade called "scientific" creationism (SC). Although this oxymoronic institution of scriptural literalism may be of no immediate concern to the rational public mindset, SC proponents have recently found another inroad into the U.S. public school curriculum in the form of Intelligent Design (ID), an 'origins' movement claiming to be neutral on the subject of religion. Publicly, the ID movement advocates the study of design in nature without attributing design to any specific designer. However, any inquiry into 'design' necessitates contemplation of a 'designer'--i.e. a quest for supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. Although also populated by agnostics, theistic evolutionists, and those otherwise religiously neutral on origins, the ID movement is heavily supported by CA/SC advocates, who believe that all scientific inquiry should be subsumed under and interpreted through strict scriptural exegesis. Unlike modern science, CA/SC doctrinal "science" begins with Biblical conclusions and entertains only those facts that support inerrant scripture.