Revisiting abstraction and idealization in molecular biology (7th Biennial Conference of the European Philosophy of Science Association (EPSA19))

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11210%2F19%3A10396390" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11210/19:10396390 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

—

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Revisiting abstraction and idealization in molecular biology (7th Biennial Conference of the European Philosophy of Science Association (EPSA19))

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Abstraction has been understood as a process by which scientists omit certain features that are deemed irrelevant for the occurence of the studied phenomena. Idealization, on the other hand, is commonly construed as a way of distorting selected features. According to one of the most popular accounts of scientific explanation, the mechanistic account of explanation, scientists attempt to build models that accurately represent all and only the difference-making factors that are responsible for the production of phenomena. However, the common practice in molecular biology modeling is to omit as well as distort various features, or so has been argued. These apparent distortions include the practices of disregarding the role of concentration, treating molecular complexes as if they were single-operating units, and treating the fuzzy process of constant binding and detaching of molecules as if the process was linear. Thus, it seems that the difference-making factors are commonly being distorted. I argue that this line of thinking is misguided as it rests on underdeveloped notions of abstraction and idealization. The analysis I present shows how the objection against the mechanistic account of explanation fails, despite the fact that the objection has gained in popularity.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Revisiting abstraction and idealization in molecular biology (7th Biennial Conference of the European Philosophy of Science Association (EPSA19))

Popis výsledku anglicky

Abstraction has been understood as a process by which scientists omit certain features that are deemed irrelevant for the occurence of the studied phenomena. Idealization, on the other hand, is commonly construed as a way of distorting selected features. According to one of the most popular accounts of scientific explanation, the mechanistic account of explanation, scientists attempt to build models that accurately represent all and only the difference-making factors that are responsible for the production of phenomena. However, the common practice in molecular biology modeling is to omit as well as distort various features, or so has been argued. These apparent distortions include the practices of disregarding the role of concentration, treating molecular complexes as if they were single-operating units, and treating the fuzzy process of constant binding and detaching of molecules as if the process was linear. Thus, it seems that the difference-making factors are commonly being distorted. I argue that this line of thinking is misguided as it rests on underdeveloped notions of abstraction and idealization. The analysis I present shows how the objection against the mechanistic account of explanation fails, despite the fact that the objection has gained in popularity.

Druh

O - Ostatní výsledky

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

60301 - Philosophy, History and Philosophy of science and technology

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/GA19-04236S" target="_blank" >GA19-04236S: Zjednodušující předpoklady a nekauzální vysvětlení</a><br>

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2019

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů