http://philosophy.ru/iphras/library/karpinsk/biophil.html
LV Belousov Is a general biological science program?
... I'll try to make another attempt to outline the general outlines of a possible biological program. It seems that if you hold among the world's biological community representative survey - what ideas, undertakings, directions are believe in the greatest measure claims to be the foundation of biology leading research programs of the twentieth century - the most common answer is: it's Darwinism and classical genetics, developed into molecular biology.
My view on this matter may seem paradoxical, but I will try to justify it. It consists in the fact that both statements could agree with that, however, the proviso that normally do on these occasions, the epistemological and methodological conclusions should be literally turned inside out, replacing them with almost reversed. Try to figure it out.in 1937 was named the year of occurrence SHE - this year there was a book of Russian-American geneticist and entomologist, systematics Dobzansky «Genetics and the Origin of Species»
Approval 1. Basis research program in modern biology is Darwinism.
... Nevertheless, the basic idea, or rather, the main vector of Darwin's scientific thought is not yet rated and is not used until the end of the glow of genius. The main thing in it I would read as follows: to solve the problem of evolution species, it is necessary to go beyond the species (individuals) as such, and rise to the level above, to include consideration of population and environment (geographical) factors. Moreover, Darwin realized that the impact of higher-level member in the ordering (though - through the selection) "random" dynamics, born on lower level.
This line of thought is really a genius, and perhaps up to now not fully understood. It is striking that exactly the same scientific course of repeated one of the most vocal haters of Darwinism - Hans Driesch, when he attributed the "whole" can not be reduced to the sum of embryonic cells, the role of factor criteria for potency, produced in excess at the cellular level (body parts). One might think that the whole course of biology in the twentieth century was different if these intuitive findings remarkable minds of the past have been explicitly included in the academic community.
Proposition 2. The basis of the scientific program of biology XX century is molecular biology, emerged directly from classical genetics, for its outstanding achievements of these areas of science must work consistently and uncompromising reductionism, which, in this way and proved himself as the most constructive biological methodology.
... Indeed, as now clearly shown by historians of natural science (Muzrukova), the decisive factor in the success of classical genetics was "a conscious restriction of researchers his own field of vision. "This refers primarily to Morgan, who clearly understood that created them drozofilnaya genetics should exclude from consideration indefinitely the whole problem "of" hereditary properties in ontogeny (again - "ontogenetic blindness", this times more than the conscious and dramatically experienced by such a distinguished embryologist, as was Morgan himself). There is no way to explain the problem of hereditary properties in all its details. Suffice it to say that one of the main questions is quite simple: how in spite of the fact that almost in all somatic cells contain equivalent sets of genes, these cells are specialized in different directions and there is what we call laws of spatial organization of the embryo and adult organism? In other words - which operates the (now they say - expression) own genes? Some may say that this question was left unattended only for a while, and that it is normal for science. But maybe not in this case, where literally cut to the quick, leaving in the framed picture is no place for a future theory of implementation. Physics would be considered satisfactory a theory of electricity, which would give an explanation of electrostatic phenomena in terms that are not applicable to electrodynamics? And in this case, the biological opinion considered such a theory, not only satisfactory, but in general the ideal of perfection.
next remark. The ideologists of molecular biology, especially period of "storm and stress", is now apparently approached the end, used with undisguised contempt for classical biology as a "narrative" contrasting her own, which, in their opinion, let immeasurably deeper into the "essence" or, say, the "mechanisms" of biological phenomena. Leaving aside the discussion of two used in this sentence terms, ask yourself: if A is less than in the molecular biology of descriptive or correct, ideographic . element compared to the classical biology? Or, to put it simply: less whether the molecular and related areas of biology that the students have simply memorize, memorize, take note as it is, not relying on removing it from any general laws? Everyone who gave the relevant items knows that nothing less. Modern molecular biology is nothing like "Zoology of the molecules, where it is said is not a reproach: zoology as it was, and remains a great science, but instead of contempt to enroll her and others like her biological disciplines in the category of narrative, it would be useful to think about - why is this "narrative" so hard climbs to the surface in all, the most seemingly new and innovative areas?
... In my view, the main thing that should be learned from this experience - it's an understanding that in biological systems at all levels of elementary structures and / or processes become any specific meaning only within a holistic context. The latter is very complicated, difficult to dismember education associated in the humanitarian sphere with a range of concepts such as language, the alphabet, a set of social arrangements or the culture at large. Obviously, that no paper money, not a word, no sound, no letters, and, moreover, no molecules of ink do not mean anything outside the circle of these concepts.
And that means calcium ion, molecule cyclic adenosine monophosphate (so-called universal intracellular mediator) or a nucleotide triplet (unit of heredity code) is a hierarchically organized multi-level context, which includes not only the enzymatic apparatus performing double and transcription DNA, but also the signaling systems within cells and between them, until macromorphological structural features of organisms and their interaction with the surrounding biotic and abiotic environment? Or too personal, or something very vague. It is well known that the same effectors (eg, hormones), interacting with the same receptors activated in different cell types, different sets of genes. Which set will be activated - is almost independent of the impact and almost entirely determined so far remained an enigma, "a cellular context."
This range of issues can, of course, arbitrarily discussed in detail. But enough has been said to raise the issue of the reorientation of biological research program.
http://www.studfiles.ru/dir/cat18/subj430/file12633/view126372/ page2.html
0 comments:
Post a Comment