Skip to main content

Biological Reductionism

The Problems and Some Answers

  • Chapter

Part of the Life Science Monographs book series (LSMO)

Abstract

The problems of biological reductionism, that is, questions of the relationship between whole organisms and their parts, fall into three domains: ontological, methodological, and epistemological. Ontological reductionism occurs when an organism is found to be exhaustively composed of the same components as inorganic matter. Methodological reductionism is the claim that the best strategy of research is to study living phenomena at the lowest levels of complexity. Epistemological reductionism results if the laws and theories of biology can be derived as special cases of the laws and theories of the physical sciences.

The mechanism versus vitalism issue belongs to the ontological domain, as does the issue of emergent properties. All evidence indicates that organisms are exhaustively composed of nonliving atoms and that life processes can be explained without recourse to any substantive nonmaterial entity. However, atoms in association do display properties not normally included among those of isolated atoms, and in practice there is no way to ascertain what properties one object may show in conjunction with any other.

Methodological reductionism seems justified in a moderate form: often the best strategy of research is an alternation between analysis and synthesis. This moderate position finds support from epistemological reductionists, who admit the heuristic value of nonreductionistic experiments, and from opponents of epistemological reductionism, who nevertheless think that organisms should be studied at all levels of integration.

Epistemological reduction of one theory to another takes the form of a deductive argument in which one of the premises is the primary theory and the conclusion is the secondary theory. This operation requires that the disparate terms of the two theories be connected by suitable definitions. These conditions have been largely satisfied in the reduction of thermodynamics to statistical mechanics, the reduction of chemical valence theory to the physics of orbital electrons, and the reduction of some of genetics to molecular biology. If the reduction of one science to another is not possible at present, then claims that such a reduction will be possible in the future carry little weight. In any case, there is an unresolved residue accompanying any attempt at epistemological reductionism, and the terms and patterns of explanation in some sciences seem wholly unconnectable with those of other sciences. For these reasons it seems unlikely that complete epistemological reduction of biology to physics will ever be possible. Nevertheless, epistemological reduction of biology to physics will ever be possible. Nevertheless, epistemological reductions are successful forms of scientific explanation and remain a reasonable goal of scientific work. —The Editor

Keywords

  • Physical Science
  • Component Part
  • Emergent Property
  • Ontological Domain
  • Secondary Science

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4613-0883-6_17
  • Chapter length: 10 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-1-4613-0883-6
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ayala, F. J. (1968) Biology as an autonomous science. Am. Sci. 56:207–221.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ayala, F. J. (1970) Teleological explanations in evolutionary biology. Philos. Sci. 37:1–15.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ayala, F. J., and T. Dobzhansky, eds. (1974) Studies in the Philosophy of Biology. Macmillan & Co., London, and University of California Press, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, G. M. (1974) The problem of molecular recognition by a selective system. In: Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, F. J. Ayala and T. Dobzhansky (eds.). Macmillan & Co., London, pp. 45–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. (1974) Philosophy of Biological Science. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koestler, A., and J. R. Smythies (1969) Beyond Reductionism. Hutchinson, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, E. (1961) The Structure of Science. Harcourt, Brace & World, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1974) Scientific reduction and the essential incompleteness of all science. In: Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, F. J. Ayala and T. Dobzhansky (eds.). Macmillan & Co., London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, G. G. (1964) This View of Life. Harcourt, Brace & World, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 1987 Plenum Press, New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ayala, F.J. (1987). Biological Reductionism. In: Yates, F.E., Garfinkel, A., Walter, D.O., Yates, G.B. (eds) Self-Organizing Systems. Life Science Monographs. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-0883-6_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-0883-6_17

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-8227-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4613-0883-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive