The hole in the whale - The philosophy of biology
Posted on July 11, 2017 by scheichsbeutel on litteratur.ch Actually, I had planned to avoid books by science journalists in the future: the experiences of the past few years have been more than mixed (read here and here, for example). But this time it was worth it, a really successful, extremely stimulating book. The structure seems a little confusing: in addition to five detailed interviews at the end of the book (with greats such as Ernst Mayr, John Maynard Smith, Bert Hölldobler and Francisco J. Ayala), the opening chapters deal with the philosophical implications of biology (and above all of the Darwinism) compared to academic philosophy and theoretical physics. It is not always entirely clear who is holding which opinion (something that also stands out negatively in the interviews): Is it the biologists or physicists quoted or is it the author himself who supports these positions. Also, the section on disease and evolution doesn't quite fit into that scheme and feels like a foreign body. The nice thing about it: Like almost all other parts of the book, it is extremely informative and attractively written. I fully agree with the call for greater consideration of Darwinism in philosophy: I can only subscribe to Ernst Mayr's dictum that there is no scientific knowledge more important for philosophy than Darwin's theory. It is more than regrettable that these – especially in epistemological terms – groundbreaking findings are hardly reflected in philosophical research. However, the view (of Mayr in particular) is clouded by the fact that he apparently had no knowledge of evolutionary epistemology and had a somewhat antiquated view of philosophy in general. Of course, it is correct to claim that philosophizing in the wake of Platonic idealism is a prime example of the ignorance of many representatives of the philosophical guild (by starting from a static world view, which Darwinism with its dynamic approach is diametrically opposed to). , but this form of “classical” philosophizing (along with the supposedly profound scrawl of a Heidegger, which Mayr simply finds “puke” – and rightly so) is not the only and primary way of thinking. In the field of critical rationalism, too, the insight has long since prevailed that ignoring scientific knowledge makes contemporary philosophy impossible. Another point of criticism from most of the biologists quoted in the book is that the reductionist attempt at explanation by many physicists (e.g. by Richard Feynman) is considered inadequate; likewise the approach that a world formula would entail a definitive explanation of all existence (as propagated by Stephen Hawking) is rejected. However, this criticism also contains wounded vanity (many biologists are soured by the sums that the state invests in basic physical research) and some intentional or unintentional misunderstandings. Only a few physicists are of Feynman's opinion that precise knowledge of the atomic structure of a cell would also explain life, but rather point to the simple fact that the physical (chemical) laws of nature are also valid in biology, something that not disputed by any biologist. Rather, the statements show that these controversies are due to a lack of willingness to deal with the views of those affected, whereby some formulations (by physicists) were deliberately chosen to be provocative. And an inner-biological dispute (between Darwinists and molecular geneticists) runs through the whole book: Mayr (as a representative of the Darwinists and opponent of gene selection, such as that advocated by Dawkins) is opposed to the mathematically oriented evolutionary geneticist John Maynard Smith. Here, too, one cannot avoid the impression that contradictory positions are often exaggerated and both sides, out of a perverse “principle of principle”, assume that the other has no idea of “real” biology. The great thing about this book is precisely this comparison of opinions and the concise description of the respective attitudes; these are presented in a comprehensible and understandable way and encourage the reader to deal more intensively with the excellent and commented bibliography (which is unfortunately a little outdated due to the publication date). And so this book (despite some controversial or even questionable views) is one thing above all: Stimulating - and giving impetus to turn to the numerous ideas discussed. (Which prompted me to finally free Mayr's book "A New Philosophy of Biology" from its dusty book edge.)
Share by: