Advertisement

Biosemiotics

pp 1–15 | Cite as

New Mechanistic Philosophy and the Scientific Prospects of Code Biology

  • Majid Davoody BeniEmail author
Review Articles (9,000)
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

Marcello Barbieri has presented code biology as an alternative to the Peircean approach to biosemiotics. Some critics questioned the viability of code biology on grounds that Barbieri’s conception of science is limited. It has been argued that code biology’s mechanistic tendency is the cause of the allegedly limited conception of science. In this paper, I evaluate the scientific viability of the code model from the perspective of scientific realism in the philosophy of science. To be more precise, I draw on resources of the mechanistic view in philosophy (aka New Mechanistic Philosophy) to argue that far from harbouring a limited conception of science, code biology could indeed improve the scientific prospects of biosemiotics. I show that the mechanistic and model-based tendency of the code model enhances its vigour as a full-blooded scientific approach to the study of meaning in living systems. To consolidate my claim, I draw on some recent debates in the mechanistic philosophy to argue that even relational approaches to understanding the meaning in living systems—such as an approach that is defended by Vega in a recent paper—could be underpinned by mechanistic processes at a foundational level.

Keywords

Code model New mechanistic philosophy Mechanistic models Barbieri Peirce’s approach to biosemiotics Interpretation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I have to thank Marcello Barbieri and Stephen Cowley for their insightful comments. I also benefited a lot from the comments of three anonymous referees of Biosemiotics as well as the journal’s editors. All of these debts are gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Atkin, A. (2010). Peirce’s theory of signs. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (summer 2013 edition). Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/. Accessed 3 March 2019.
  2. Barbieri, M. (2008). Biosemiotics: a new understanding of life. Die Naturwissenschaften, 95(7), 577–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbieri, M. (2009). Three types of semiosis. Biosemiotics, 2(1), 19–30.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-008-9038-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbieri, M. (2011). A mechanistic model of meaning. Biosemiotics, 4(1), 1–4.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-010-9103-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbieri, M. (2014). From biosemiotics to code biology. Biological Theory, 9(2), 239–249.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-013-0155-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barbieri, M. (2015). Code biology. Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bechtel, W. (2017). Analysing wetwork models to make discoveries about biological mechanisms. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, aaxx(051), 21–25.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axx051.Google Scholar
  8. Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2005). Explanation: a mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36(2), 421–441.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2005.03.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. C. (2010). Discovering complexity : Decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Cambridge: MIT Press https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/discovering-complexity.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the brain : Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Craver, C. F. (2014). The ontic account of scientific explanation. In Explanation in the special sciences (pp. 27–52). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Craver, C. F. (2016). The explanatory power of network models. Philosophy of Science, 83(5), 698–709.  https://doi.org/10.1086/687856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Craver, C. F., & Povich, M. (2017). The directionality of distinctively mathematical explanations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 63, 31–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SHPSA.2017.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gabius, H.-J. (2018). The sugar code: why glycans are so important. BioSystems, 164, 102–111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2017.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giere, R. N. (1999). Using models to represent reality. In Model-mased reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 41–57). Boston: Springer US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Giere, R. N. (2004). How models are used to represent reality. Philosophy of Science, 71(5), 742–752.  https://doi.org/10.1086/425063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glennan, S. (2017). The new mechanical philosophy (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2006). The strategy of model-based science. Biology and Philosophy, 21(5), 725–740.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-006-9054-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2009). Models and fictions in science. Philosophical Studies, 143(1), 101–116.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-008-9313-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hempel, C. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hoffmeyer, J. (2008). Biosemiotics. An examination into the signs of life and the life of signs. Scranton: University of Scranton Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hofmeyr, J.-H. S. (2018). Causation, constructors and codes. BioSystems, 164, 121–127.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2017.09.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huneman, P. (2010). Topological explanations and robustness in biological sciences. Synthese, 177(2), 213–245.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-010-9842-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huneman, P. (2018). Outlines of a theory of structural explanations. Philosophical Studies, 175(3), 665–702.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-017-0887-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kubyshkin, V., Acevedo-Rocha, C. G., & Budisa, N. (2018). On universal coding events in protein biogenesis. BioSystems, 164, 16–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2017.10.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levin, M., & Martyniuk, C. J. (2018). The bioelectric code: an ancient computational medium for dynamic control of growth and form. BioSystems, 164, 76–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2017.08.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ma, X., Dagliyan, O., Hahn, K. M., & Danuser, G. (2018). Profiling cellular morphodynamics by spatiotemporal spectrum decomposition. PLoS Computational Biology, 14(8), e1006321.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67(1), 1–25.  https://doi.org/10.1086/392759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nicholson, D. J. (2012). The concept of mechanism in biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43(1), 152–163.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.05.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nicholson, D. J. (2013). Organisms≠Machines. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 44(4), 669–678.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.05.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Psillos, S. (2011). Choosing the realist framework. In Synthese. Netherland: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.2307/41477558.Google Scholar
  32. Rathkopf, C. (2018). Network representation and complex systems. Synthese, 195(1), 55–78.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0726-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosen, R. (1991). Life itself : a comprehensive inquiry into the nature, origin, and fabrication of life.. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Rosen, R. (2012). Anticipatory systems : Philosophical, mathematical, and methodological foundations. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sebeok, T. A. (1990). Essays in zoosemiotics. Toronto: Toronto Semiotic Circle.Google Scholar
  36. Sebeok, T. A. (2001). Biosemiotics: its roots, proliferation, and prospects. Semiotica, 2001(134).  https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2001.014.
  37. Short, T. L. (2007). Peirce’s theory of signs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Uexküll, J. von. (2010). A foray into the worlds of animals and humans : with A theory of meaning. (trans. Joseph D. O’Neil, Ed.). University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  39. Vega, F. (2018). A critique of Barbieri’s code biology through Rosen’s relational biology: Reconciling Barbieri’s biosemiotics with Peircean biosemiotics. Biological Theory, 13, 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-018-0302-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weisberg, M. (2013). Simulation and similarity using models to understand the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management, Science and TechnologyAmirkabir University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations