Fábregas-Tejeda Alejandro, Vergara-Silva Francisco
Instituto de Biología (Jardín Botánico), Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Circuito Exterior Ciudad Universitaria S/N, 04510, Mexico City, Mexico.
Posgrado en Filosofía de la Ciencia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico.
Theory Biosci. 2018 Nov;137(2):169-184. doi: 10.1007/s12064-018-0269-2. Epub 2018 Aug 21.
The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) debate is gaining ground in contemporary evolutionary biology. In parallel, a number of philosophical standpoints have emerged in an attempt to clarify what exactly is represented by the EES. For Massimo Pigliucci, we are in the wake of the newest instantiation of a persisting Kuhnian paradigm; in contrast, Telmo Pievani has contended that the transition to an EES could be best represented as a progressive reformation of a prior Lakatosian scientific research program, with the extension of its Neo-Darwinian core and the addition of a brand-new protective belt of assumptions and auxiliary hypotheses. Here, we argue that those philosophical vantage points are not the only ways to interpret what current proposals to 'extend' the Modern Synthesis-derived 'standard evolutionary theory' (SET) entail in terms of theoretical change in evolutionary biology. We specifically propose the image of the emergent EES as a vast network of models and interweaved representations that, instantiated in diverse practices, are connected and related in multiple ways. Under that assumption, the EES could be articulated around a paraconsistent network of evolutionary theories (including some elements of the SET), as well as models, practices and representation systems of contemporary evolutionary biology, with edges and nodes that change their position and centrality as a consequence of the co-construction and stabilization of facts and historical discussions revolving around the epistemic goals of this area of the life sciences. We then critically examine the purported structure of the EES-published by Laland and collaborators in 2015-in light of our own network-based proposal. Finally, we consider which epistemic units of Evo-Devo are present or still missing from the EES, in preparation for further analyses of the topic of explanatory integration in this conceptual framework.
扩展进化综合论(EES)之争在当代进化生物学领域正日益激烈。与此同时,一些哲学观点也应运而生,试图阐明EES究竟代表着什么。对马西莫·皮廖奇而言,我们正处于库恩范式最新实例的余波之中;相比之下,特尔莫·皮耶瓦尼则认为,向EES的转变最好被视为对先前拉卡托斯式科学研究纲领的渐进式改革,其新达尔文主义核心得到扩展,并增添了全新的假设和辅助假说保护带。在此,我们认为这些哲学观点并非阐释当前“扩展”源自现代综合论的“标准进化理论”(SET)的提议在进化生物学理论变革方面所蕴含内容的唯一方式。我们特别提出,新兴的EES可被视作一个由模型和相互交织的表征构成的庞大网络,这些模型和表征在不同实践中得以实例化,并以多种方式相互连接和关联。在这一假设之下,EES可以围绕一个包含进化理论(包括SET的一些要素)以及当代进化生物学的模型、实践和表征系统的弗协调网络来阐述,其边和节点会因围绕生命科学这一领域认知目标的事实共建与稳定以及历史讨论而改变自身位置和中心性。接着,我们根据自己基于网络的提议,批判性地审视了2015年由拉兰德及其合作者发表的EES的所谓结构。最后,我们思考了进化发育生物学的哪些认知单元在EES中已经存在或仍然缺失,为在这一概念框架中进一步分析解释性整合这一主题做好准备。