Can biological complexity be reverse engineered?

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 53:73-83 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Concerns with the use of engineering approaches in biology have recently been raised. I examine two related challenges to biological research that I call the synchronic and diachronic underdetermination problem. The former refers to challenges associated with the inference of design principles underlying system capacities when the synchronic relations between lower-level processes and higher-level systems capacities are degenerate. The diachronic underdetermination problem regards the problem of reverse engineering a system where the non-linear relations between system capacities and lower-level mechanisms are changing over time. Braun and Marom argue that recent insights to biological complexity leave the aim of reverse engineering hopeless - in principle as well as in practice. While I support their call for systemic approaches to capture the dynamic nature of living systems, I take issue with the conflation of reverse engineering with naïve reductionism. I clarify how the notion of design principles can be more broadly conceived and argue that reverse engineering is compatible with a dynamic view of organisms. It may even help to facilitate an integrated account that bridges the gap between mechanistic and systems approaches.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,610

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Gould on laws in biological science.Lee Mcintyre - 1997 - Biology and Philosophy 12 (3):357-367.
Mechanisms for Robust Cognition.Matthew M. Walsh & Kevin A. Gluck - 2015 - Cognitive Science 39 (6):1131-1171.
In Defense of Reverse Inference.Edouard Machery - 2014 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65 (2):251-267.
Mathematics in the biological sciences.Not By Me - 1992 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 6 (3):241 – 248.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-09-03

Downloads
94 (#182,078)

6 months
18 (#139,534)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Biology meets Physics: Reductionism and Multi-scale Modeling of Morphogenesis.Sara Green & Robert Batterman - 2017 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 7161:20-34.
The Sum of the Parts: Large-Scale Modeling in Systems Biology.Fridolin Gross & Sara Green - 2017 - Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 9 (10).
How is cancer complex?Anya Plutynski - 2021 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 11 (2):1-30.
Can functionality in evolving networks be explained reductively?Ulrich Krohs - 2015 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 53:94-101.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Metaphors we live by.George Lakoff & Mark Johnson - 1980 - Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Edited by Mark Johnson.
Models and Analogies in Science.Mary B. Hesse - 1963 - [Notre Dame, Ind.]: University of Notre Dame Press.
Metaphors We Live By.George Lakoff & Mark Johnson - 1980 - Ethics 93 (3):619-621.

View all 30 references / Add more references