Boon Mieke
Department of Philosophy, University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands.
Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2017 Oct;129:25-39. doi: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2017.04.001. Epub 2017 Apr 4.
In order to deal with the complexity of biological systems and attempts to generate applicable results, current biomedical sciences are adopting concepts and methods from the engineering sciences. Philosophers of science have interpreted this as the emergence of an engineering paradigm, in particular in systems biology and synthetic biology. This article aims at the articulation of the supposed engineering paradigm by contrast with the physics paradigm that supported the rise of biochemistry and molecular biology. This articulation starts from Kuhn's notion of a disciplinary matrix, which indicates what constitutes a paradigm. It is argued that the core of the physics paradigm is its metaphysical and ontological presuppositions, whereas the core of the engineering paradigm is the epistemic aim of producing useful knowledge for solving problems external to the scientific practice. Therefore, the two paradigms involve distinct notions of knowledge. Whereas the physics paradigm entails a representational notion of knowledge, the engineering paradigm involves the notion of 'knowledge as epistemic tool'.
为了应对生物系统的复杂性并尝试得出可应用的结果，当前的生物医学科学正在采用工程科学的概念和方法。科学哲学家将此解释为一种工程范式的出现，尤其是在系统生物学和合成生物学中。本文旨在通过与支持生物化学和分子生物学兴起的物理学范式形成对比，来阐明所谓的工程范式。这种阐明始于库恩的学科矩阵概念，该概念表明了构成范式的要素。有人认为，物理学范式的核心是其形而上学和本体论预设，而工程范式的核心是产生有用知识以解决科学实践之外问题的认知目标。因此，这两种范式涉及不同的知识概念。物理学范式需要一种知识的表征概念，而工程范式涉及“作为认知工具的知识”概念。
