Science & Education

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 1381–1402 | Cite as

Kampourakis, K. (ed.) (2013): The Philosophy of Biology: A Companion for Educators

Springer, Dordrecht, ISBN: 978-94-007-6536-8, 762 pp, price: US $ 219.00
  • Charbel N. El-Hani
Book Review

General Appraisal

The Philosophy of Biology: A Companion for Educators, edited by Kostas Kampourakis, is a most useful addition to the scholarly resources available to both science educators and science education researchers. The volume gathers several well-known scholars in the philosophy of biology, addressing a large range of topics in good quality and generally accessible chapters. There are some chapters, however, that pose more difficulties to the readers, particularly those not acquainted with philosophy of science, more generally, or philosophy of biology, in particular. But we can see through the whole volume the results of Kampourakis’ focused editorial work in the efforts evidently made by the authors to make their arguments more accessible to an audience that is not the usual one they address. A nice resource provided by the book is the glossary at the end of the volume, which will be useful for the science educators and other readers to which some concepts used in the...


  1. Allchin, D. (2000). Mending mendelism. The American Biology Teacher, 62, 633–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, P. W., Gangestad, S. W., & Matthews, D. (2002). Adaptationism: How to carry out an exaptationist program. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 489–553.Google Scholar
  3. Arthur, W. (2011). Evolution: A developmental approach. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  4. Behe, M. (1996). Darwin’s black box: The biochemical challenge to evolution. New York, NY: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  5. Caponi, G. (2011). La Segunda Agenda Darwiniana. Políticos y Sociales Vicente Lombardo Toledano, México, DC: Centro de Estudios Filosóficos.Google Scholar
  6. Corcos, A., & Monaghan, F. (1985). Some myths about Mendel’s experiments. The American Biology Teacher, 47, 233–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Craver, C., & Bechtel, W. (2006). Mechanism. In S. Sarkar & J. Pfeifer (Eds.), Philosophy of science: An encyclopedia (pp. 469–478). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species (1st ed.). London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  9. Dawkins, R. (1996). The blind watchmaker (2nd ed.). New York-NY: Norton.Google Scholar
  10. Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea. New York-NY: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  11. El-Hani CN (2014a) Downward determination as a propensity-changing non-causal relation. Submitted to biology and philosophy.Google Scholar
  12. El-Hani CN (2014b) Mendel in genetics teaching: Some contributions from history of science and articles for teachers. Science & Education, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  13. El-Hani, C. N., & Mortimer, E. F. (2007). Multicultural education, pragmatism, and the goals of science teaching. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2, 657–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. El-Hani, C. N., Queiroz, J., & Emmeche, C. (2009). Genes, information, and semiosis. Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gericke, N. M., & Hagberg, M. (2007). Definition of historical models of gene function and their relation to students’ understandings of genetics. Science & Education, 16, 849–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gericke, N. M., Hagberg, M., Santos, V. C., Joaquim, L. M., & El-Hani, C. N. (2014). Conceptual variation or incoherence? Textbook discourse on genes in six countries. Science & Education, 23, 381–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Godfrey-Smith, P. (1999). Adaptationism and the power of selection. Biology and Philosophy, 14, 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2001). Three kinds of adaptationism. In S. H. Orzac & E. Sober (Eds.), Adaptationism and optimality (pp. 335–357). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gould, S. J. (2002). Rocks of ages. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
  20. Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 205, 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Griffiths, P. E., & Knight, R. D. (1998). What is the developmentalist challenge? Philosophy of Science, 65, 253–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hofstadter, D. R. (1979). Gödel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden braid. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  23. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20, 591–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson P (1993/2001) Creator or Blind Watchmaker? In: R. Pennock (Ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics (pp. 435–449). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kampourakis, K. (2013). Mendel and the path to genetics: Portraying science as a social process. Science & Education, 22, 293–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kant I (1790/1987) Critique of Judgment. Indianapolis, IL: Hackett Publ.Google Scholar
  27. Keller, E. F. (2000). The century of the gene. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Keller, E. F. (2005). The century beyond the gene. Journal of Biosciences, 30, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lennox, J. G. (1993). Darwin was a teleologist. Biology and Philosophy, 8, 405–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science to features of science. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Monod, J. (1971). Chance and necessity: An essay on the natural philosophy of modern biology. New York, NY: Knopf.Google Scholar
  32. Moss, L. (2003). What genes can’t do. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Mossio, M., & Moreno, A. (2010). Organisational closure in biological organisms. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 32, 269–288.Google Scholar
  34. Mossio, M., Saborido, C., & Moreno, A. (2009). An organizational account of biological functions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 60, 813–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Newman, S. A., Forgacs, G., & Müller, G. B. (2006). Before programs: The physical origination of multicellular forms. International Journal of Developmental Biology, 50, 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pigliucci, M., & Muller, G. B. (2010). Elements of an extended evolutionary synthesis. In M. Pigliucci & G. B. Muller (Eds.), Evolution: The extended synthesis (pp. 3–17). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reeve, H. K., & Keller, L. (1999). Levels of selection: Burying the units-of-selection debate and unearthing the crucial new issues. In L. Keller (Ed.), Levels of selection in evolution (pp. 3–14). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Sepulveda, C., Meyer, D., & El-Hani, C. N. (2011). Adaptacionismo. In P. Abrantes (Org) (Ed.), Filosofia da Biologia (pp. 162–192). Porto Alegre: ARTMED.Google Scholar
  39. Shubin, N., Tabin, C., & Carroll, S. (2009). Deep homology and the origins of evolutionary novelty. Nature, 457, 818–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sterelny, K., & Griffiths, P. E. (1999). Sex and death: An introduction to the philosophy of biology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of BiologyFederal University of BahiaSalvadorBrazil

Personalised recommendations