Beyond Reduction and Pluralism: Toward an Epistemology of Explanatory Integration in Biology

Abstract

The paper works towards an account of explanatory integration in biology, using as a case study explanations of the evolutionary origin of novelties-a problem requiring the integration of several biological fields and approaches. In contrast to the idea that fields studying lower level phenomena are always more fundamental in explanations, I argue that the particular combination of disciplines and theoretical approaches needed to address a complex biological problem and which among them is explanatorily more fundamental varies with the problem pursued. Solving a complex problem need not require theoretical unification or the stable synthesis of different biological fields, as items of knowledge from traditional disciplines can be related solely for the purposes of a specific problem. Apart from the development of genuine interfield theories, successful integration can be effected by smaller epistemic units (concepts, methods, explanations) being linked. Unification or integration is not an aim in itself, but needed for the aim of solving a particular scientific problem, where the problem's nature determines the kind of intellectual integration required.

Systems biology and the integration of mechanistic explanation and mathematical explanation

“…By assuming that the knowledge from several fields can be logically deduced from a more fundamental (lower-level) theory, the model of theory reduction proved unable to capture the complex relations among biological ideas. Initial accounts of integration conceptualized the non-reductive yet systematic relations among fields as being provided by particular theories (so called interfield theories; Darden & Maull, 1977;Maull, 1977), but nowadays broader accounts are available, which do not require theories to be central epistemic units for all of biology (Brigandt, 2010;Leonelli, this issue;O'Malley, this issue). One approach is to use the notion of a mechanism, which is currently popular in philosophy of science (Machamer et al, 2000;Glennan et al, 2002;Craver & Darden, 2005).…”

Explanatory pluralism: An unrewarding prediction error for free energy theorists

“…Dale et al (2009) remind us that cognitive science, by its multidisciplinary nature, generates explanations that are inherently pluralistic. Brigandt (2010) observes that in evolutionary developmental biology whether or not the various relations of reduction, integration, unification, synthesis, etc. serve as a regulative ideal or scientific aim varies with the problem investigated.…”

Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Limits of Philosophical Accounts of Mechanistic Explanation

“…Examples are the origin of fins in fish and-to mention a trait on a lower level of organization-the evolution of vertebrate neural crest cells, which among other things form craniofacial bone, smooth muscle, and some types of neurons, so that after its origin the neural crest came to be involved in the evolutionary modification and generation of a variety of structures. Explaining the origin of novelty involves an account of how ancestral developmental mechanisms were so modified as to give rise to a new developmental system that produces the novelty in question (Brigandt 2010).…”

“…In any case, one can capture evo-devo's integrative nature by highlighting that it is an interdisciplinary approach (Love 2013). The complex explanatory problems it addresses require the use of ideas from many different biological disciplines (Brigandt 2010;Brigandt and Love 2012a;Love 2008aLove , 2008b. In addition to evolutionary genetics and developmental biology-which are explicitly noted by the notion of a synthesis of evolution and development-accounting for evolutionary novelty involves intellectual contributions from paleontology (fossil data on ancestral morphological change), phylogeny (trees of species to determine character polarity and phylogenetic junctures relevant to a character change), and morphology (composition of structures and performance of anatomical functions), among other fields.…”

“…In addition to evolutionary genetics and developmental biology-which are explicitly noted by the notion of a synthesis of evolution and development-accounting for evolutionary novelty involves intellectual contributions from paleontology (fossil data on ancestral morphological change), phylogeny (trees of species to determine character polarity and phylogenetic junctures relevant to a character change), and morphology (composition of structures and performance of anatomical functions), among other fields. Explanatory frameworks in the context of evo-devo coordinate data, ideas, and explanatory models from a variety of fields, and evo-devo reveals its integrative potential by setting up new connections between such items of knowledge (Brigandt 2010).…”