Suppr超能文献

生物学中的机制概念。

The concept of mechanism in biology.

作者信息

Nicholson Daniel J

机构信息

Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research, Adolf Lorenz Gasse, 2, Altenberg A-3422, Austria.

出版信息

Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2012 Mar;43(1):152-63. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.05.014. Epub 2011 Jul 2.

Abstract

The concept of mechanism in biology has three distinct meanings. It may refer to a philosophical thesis about the nature of life and biology ('mechanicism'), to the internal workings of a machine-like structure ('machine mechanism'), or to the causal explanation of a particular phenomenon ('causal mechanism'). In this paper I trace the conceptual evolution of 'mechanism' in the history of biology, and I examine how the three meanings of this term have come to be featured in the philosophy of biology, situating the new 'mechanismic program' in this context. I argue that the leading advocates of the mechanismic program (i.e., Craver, Darden, Bechtel, etc.) inadvertently conflate the different senses of 'mechanism'. Specifically, they all inappropriately endow causal mechanisms with the ontic status of machine mechanisms, and this invariably results in problematic accounts of the role played by mechanism-talk in scientific practice. I suggest that for effective analyses of the concept of mechanism, causal mechanisms need to be distinguished from machine mechanisms, and the new mechanismic program in the philosophy of biology needs to be demarcated from the traditional concerns of mechanistic biology.

摘要

生物学中“机制”这一概念有三种不同的含义。它可能指关于生命和生物学本质的一种哲学论点(“机械论”),指类似机器结构的内部运作(“机器机制”),或者指对特定现象的因果解释(“因果机制”)。在本文中,我追溯了生物学史上“机制”的概念演变,并考察了该术语的这三种含义如何在生物学哲学中得以体现,将新的“机械论纲领”置于这一背景下进行探讨。我认为,机械论纲领的主要倡导者(即克雷弗、达登、贝切特尔等人)无意中混淆了“机制”的不同含义。具体而言,他们都不恰当地赋予因果机制以机器机制的本体论地位,而这必然导致对机制性表述在科学实践中所起作用的解释出现问题。我建议,为了有效地分析机制概念,需要将因果机制与机器机制区分开来,并且生物学哲学中的新机械论纲领需要与机械生物学的传统关注点区分开来。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验