Skip to main content

Performative Epistemology and the Philosophy of Experimental Biology: A Synoptic Overview

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Life and Evolution

Abstract

In his 1995 book, The Mangle of Practice, Andrew Pickering distinguished between representationalist and performative idioms in philosophy of science. While the former describes science as mainly a theoretical enterprise, the latter represents science as a collection of practices. The two perspectives outline two kinds of epistemologies presenting different philosophical concerns. In fact, in a scientific world where entities are not only thought or represented but touched, used, and transformed, the question about their existence does not really matter. What does matter though is to what extent we can extrapolate, from all our experimental material activities, the “real” working of the natural processes. In this chapter, drawing on Pickering's insights, we introduce a particular kind of performative epistemology fit for grasping how experimental biologists produce reliable knowledge. We argue that experimental biology can be mapped through four principal points: constrained action, standardization, epistemic “tightening,” and extrapolation. We show that each point presents its own proper problems, assumptions, and epistemic challenges. All together, the points define what we call the Epistemic Experimental Space (EES), i.e., the space in which experimental knowledge is produced, assessed, and validated. Without the pretention to be exhaustive, we also identify some of the main conditions making experimental knowledge in biology a highly consistent, reliable, and successful epistemic activity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    The way such extrapolation is justified (and what it means) will be discussed in the final section of this essay.

  2. 2.

    It is a common experience that a sudden switch of focal attention can induce someone to commit mistakes in the course of action (i.e., playing, driving, reading, running, etc.).

  3. 3.

    This, of course, does not mean that scientific practices invariably move from enculturational to algorithmical approaches. Scientific practices present all sort of mixtures between the two. We are only arguing that a highly standardized experimental system reduces the presence of enculturational elements.

  4. 4.

    In fact, it could be the case that some of the properties producing these effects are well-known and successfully used to control the experimental phenomena, even if the nature of the entity having these properties is mostly unknown. Not surprisingly, we do not always know if well-known properties belong to the same object. Yet, this does not necessarily prevent us from manipulating the entity and/or the properties constituting it.

  5. 5.

    On the concept of gene as “difference maker,” see Waters (2007).

  6. 6.

    Thus, while we need very good reasons for doubting about the existence of those entities, we do not really need good reasons for believing in their existence.

  7. 7.

    And jeopardize promising experimental activities focused on instrumental entities or properties.

  8. 8.

    Of course, the epistemic price for distrusting about an instrumental (or partially known) entity would be comparatively lower than the epistemic price that a practitioner should assume for distrusting about the existence of “well-known” entities or properties.

References

  • Ankeny, R. (2001). Model organisms as models: Understanding the “Lingua Franca” of the human genome project. Philosophy of Science (Proceedings of the 2000 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association), 68, S251–S261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ankeny, R., & Leonelli, S. (2011). What’s so special about model organisms? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 42, 313–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baetu, T. (2016). The “big picture”: The problem of extrapolation in basic research. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 67, 941–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baird, D., & Nordmann, A. (1994). Facts-well-put. British Jorunal of Philosophy of Science, 45, 37–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolker, J. (1995). Model systems in developmental biology. BioEssays, 17, 451–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolker, J. (2009). Exemplary and surrogate models: Two modes of representation in biology. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 52, 485–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boon, M. (2012). Understanding scientific practices: The role of robustness notions. In L. Soler (Ed.), Characterizing the robustness of science: after the practice turn in philosophy of science. (Boston studies in the philosophy of science; Vol. 292, No. 292)

    Google Scholar 

  • Canguilhem, G. (2015). Le normal et le pathologique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. M. (1987). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culp, S. (1995). Objectivity in experimental inquiry: Breaking data-technique circles. Philosophy of Science, 62, 430–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culp, S. (1997). Establishing genotype/phenotype relationships: Gene targeting as an experimental approach. Philosophy of Science, 64(4), S268–S278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, H. (2000). Inductive risk and values in science. Philosophy of Science, 67, 559–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eronen, M. (2015). Robustness and reality. Synthese, 192, 3961–3977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, R. (1984). The gene in search of an identity. Human Genetics, 68, 195–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1992). The self-vindication of the laboratory sciences. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 29–64). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, C. (2002). Philosophy and biochemistry: Research at the interface between chemistry and biology. Foundations of Chemistry, 4, 97–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, R. (1994). Lords of the Fly: Drosophila genetics and the experimental life. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaFollette, H., & Shanks, N. (1993). Animal models in biomedical research: Some epistemological worries. Public Affairs Quarterly, 7, 113–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaFollette, H., & Shanks, N. (1995). Two models of models in biomedical research. The Philosophical Quarterly, 45, 141–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. Brace and World: Harcourt.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nederbragt, H. (2003). Strategies to improve the reliability of a theory: The experiment of bacterial invasion into cultured epithelial cells. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 34, 593–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practices: Time, agency and science. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rheinberger, H. G. (1997). Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steel, D. (2008). Across the boundaries. Extrapolation in biology and social science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strand, R. (1999). Towards a useful philosophy of biochemistry: Sketches and examples. Foundations of Chemistry, 1, 269–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters, K. (2007). Causes that make a difference. The Journal of Philosophy, 104(11), 551–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (2004). Philosophy of experimental biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wimsatt, W. (1981). “Robustness. Reliability and Overdetermination”, in M. Brewer and B. Collins. eds. Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 124–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilholt, T. (2009). Bias and values in scientific research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 40(1), 92–101.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico de Chile (Project grant N. 1171017) for the financial support. We also thank the reviewers for their very insightful feedback and insights.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Esposito, M., Vallejos Baccelliere, G. (2020). Performative Epistemology and the Philosophy of Experimental Biology: A Synoptic Overview. In: Baravalle, L., Zaterka, L. (eds) Life and Evolution. History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences, vol 26. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39589-6_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics