Abstract
The multiplicity of explanations in the biological sciences has already been amply discussed by philosophers of science. The field of Evo-Devo has been a focus of much attention, with the obvious coexistence and competition of evolutionary and developmental explanations. In this contribution I borrow examples from hugely different areas of biological research to show that this multiplicity of explanations is common to all branches of biology. I will emphasize three explanations for this diversity. The first is the ambiguity of the questions raised, which can be understood in different ways and require different answers. One recurring ambiguity concerns the local or general nature of the questions (and answers). The second explanation is in the historicity of life, which makes every situation unique, and may require different models for the explanation of apparently similar situations. Another cause of this plurality is the existence of long-lasting competing traditions of explanations. These traditions result from the existence of distinct approaches to reality in scientific thinking, such as the opposition between reductionism and holism, and from a complex history of scientific ideas, models, and theories proper to each biological field. The multiplicity of explanations in the biological sciences therefore has a heterogeneous origin, both epistemic and ontological.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
References
Arndt, M., Juffmann, T., & Vedral, V. (2009). Quantum physics meets biology. HFSP Journal, 3, 386–400.
Baetu, T. (2015). From mechanisms to mathematical models and back to mechanisms: Quantitative mechanistic explanations. In P.-A. Braillard & C. Malaterre (Eds.), Explanation in biology. An enquiry into the diversity of explanatory patterns in the life sciences (pp. 345–363). Dordrecht: Springer.
Brigandt, I. (2015). Evolutionary developmental biology and the limits of philosophical accounts of mechanistic explanation. In P.-A. Braillard & C. Malaterre (Eds.), Explanation in biology. An enquiry into the diversity of explanatory patterns in the life sciences (pp. 135–173). Dordrecht: Springer.
Brouzés, E., & Farge, E. (2004). Interplay of mechanical deformation and patterned gene expression in developing embryos. Current Opinion in Genetics and Development, 14, 367–374.
Cairns, J. (1978). Cancer: Science and society. San Francisco: WH Freeman & Co.
Delbrück, M. (1941). A theory of autocatalytic synthesis of polypeptides and its application to the problem of chromosome reproduction. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, 9, 122–124.
Dupré, J. (1983). The disunity of science. Mind, 92, 321–346.
Dupré, J. (1993). The disorder of things: Metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Erwin, D. H., & Davidson, E. H. (2009). The evolution of hierarchical gene regulatory networks. Nature Reviews Genetics, 10, 141–148.
Farge, E. (2011). Mechanotransduction in development. Current Topics in Developmental Biology, 95, 243–265.
Gould, S. J., & Vrba, S. (1982). Exaptation – A missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8, 4–15.
Holton, G. (1978). The scientific imagination: Case studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Issad, T., & Malaterre, C. (2015). Are dynamic mechanistic explanations still mechanistic? In P.-A. Braillard & C. Malaterre (Eds.), Explanation in biology. An enquiry into the diversity of explanatory patterns in the life sciences (pp. 265–292). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kaplan, D. M., & Bechtel, W. (2011). Dynamical models: An alternative or complement to mechanistic explanations? Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 438–444.
Kirschner, M. W., & Gerhart, J. C. (2005). The plausibility of life: Resolving Darwin’s dilemma. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Koltzoff, N. K. (1928). Physikalisch-chemische grundlage der morphologie. Biologisches Zentralblatt, 48, 345–369.
Koltzoff, N. K. (1939). Les molécules héréditaires. Paris: Hermann.
Lwoff, A. (1944). L’évolution physiologique: Etude des pertes de fonction chez les micro-organismes. Paris: Hermann.
Lynch, M. (2007). The origins of genome architecture. Sunderland: Sinauer.
Mayr, E. (1961). Cause and effect in biology. Science, 134, 1501–1506.
McLean, C. Y., Reno, P. L., Pollen, A. A., Bassan, A. I., Capellini, T. D., et al. (2011). Human-specific loss of regulatory DNA and the evolution of human-specific traits. Nature, 471, 216–219.
McShea, D. W., & Brandon, R. (2010). Biology’s first law: The tendency for diversity and complexity to increase in evolutionary systems. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Mekios, C. (2015). Explanation in systems biology: Is it all about mechanisms? In P.-A. Braillard & C. Malaterre (Eds.), Explanation in biology. An enquiry into the diversity of explanatory patterns in the life sciences (pp. 47–72). Dordrecht: Springer.
Mitchell, S. D. (2003). Biological complexity and integrative pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Monod, J. (1971). Chance and necessity: An essay on the natural philosophy of modern biology. New York: Knopf.
Morange, M. (1997). From the regulatory vision of cancer to the oncogene paradigm, 1975–1985. Journal of the History of Biology, 30, 1–29.
Morange, M. (2006). The transfer of behaviours by macromolecules. Journal of Biosciences, 31, 323–327.
Morange, M. (2009). Articulating different modes of explanation: The present boundary in biological research. In A. Barberousse, M. Morange, & T. Pradeu (Eds.), Mapping the future of biology: Evolving concepts and theories. Heidelberg: Springer.
Morange, M. (2011a). The attempt of Nikolai Koltzoff (Kol’tsov) to link genetics, embryology and physical chemistry. Journal of Biosciences, 36, 211–214.
Morange, M. (2011b). From Mechnikov to proteotoxicity: Ageing as the result of an intoxication. Journal of Biosciences, 36, 769–772.
Morange, M. (2012a). A new life for allostery. Journal of Biosciences, 37, 13–17.
Morange, M. (2012b). What is really new in the current evolutionary theory of cancer? Journal of Biosciences, 37, 609–612.
Morange, M. (2012c). Les secrets du vivant: Contre la pensée unique en biologie. Paris: La Découverte.
Nagel, Z. D., & Klinman, J. P. (2009). A 21st century revisionist’s view at a turning point in enzymology. Nature Chemical Biology, 5, 543–550.
Olby, R. (1974). The path to the double helix. London: Macmillan.
Olson, M. V. (1999). When loss is more: Gene loss as an engine of evolutionary change. American Journal of Human Genetics, 64, 18–23.
Pullman, B., & Pullman, A. (1963). Quantum biochemistry. New York: Interscience Publ., Wiley.
Scholes, G. D., Fleming, G. R., Olaya-Castro, A., & van Grondelle, R. (2011). Lessons from nature about solar light harvesting. Nature Chemistry, 23, 763–774.
Sloane, P. R., & Fogel, B. (2011). Creating a physical biology: The three-man paper and early molecular biology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Soto, A., & Sonnenschein, C. (2011). The tissue organization field theory of cancer: A testable replacement for the somatic mutation theory. Bioessays, 33, 332–340.
Soto, A. M., & Sonnenschein, C. (2012). Is systems biology a promising approach to resolve controversies in cancer research? Cancer Cell International, 12(1), 12.
Théry, F. (2015). Explaining in contemporary molecular biology: Beyond mechanisms. In P.-A. Braillard & C. Malaterre (Eds.), Explanation in biology. An enquiry into the diversity of explanatory patterns in the life sciences (pp. 113–133). Dordrecht: Springer.
Tinbergen, N. (1963). On the aims and methods of ethology. Zeit Tierpsychologie, 20, 410–433.
Turner, D. (2015). Historical contingency and the explanation of evolutionary trends. In P.-A. Braillard & C. Malaterre (Eds.), Explanation in biology. An enquiry into the diversity of explanatory patterns in the life sciences (pp. 73–90). Dordrecht: Springer.
Veyne, P. (1984). Writing history: Essay on epistemology. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.
Zednik, C. (2015). Heuristics, descriptions, and the scope of mechanistic explanation. In P.-A. Braillard & C. Malaterre (Eds.), Explanation in biology. An enquiry into the diversity of explanatory patterns in the life sciences (pp. 295–317). Dordrecht: Springer.
Acknowledgements
I am indebted to Dr. David Marsh for critical reading of the manuscript, to Pierre-Alain Braillard and Christophe Malaterre for inviting me to participate in this collective enterprise, and for the numerous remarks they did on the first version of the manuscript, and to the two anonymous reviewers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Morange, M. (2015). Is There an Explanation for … the Diversity of Explanations in Biological Studies?. In: Explanation in Biology. History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences, vol 11. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9822-8_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9822-8_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9821-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9822-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)