Metafísica de la individualidad biológica: argumentos para un enfoque pluralista
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22370/rhv2022iss20pp271-290Palabras clave:
individuo biológico, pluralismo ontológico, ontología procesual, perspectivismo, realismo activoResumen
Los enfoques pluralistas en filosofía de la individualidad biológica sugieren que la realidad es divisible en múltiples tipos de individuos biológicos (individuos evolutivos, genéticos, fisiológicos, entre otros). En la presente investigación argumentaré a favor de dicha ontología pluralista. Inspirado en la metafísica procesual de John Dupré, el perspectivismo de Ronald Giere y el realismo activo de Hasok Chang, sugeriré que: (i) los individuos biológicos son nexos temporalmente estables en un flujo de procesos causales, (ii) las individuaciones en biología representan individuos reales solo bajo las perspectivas científicas que las sustentan, (iii) la capacidad de la biología para reconocer diversos tipos de individuos proviene de prácticas de individuación epistémicamente exitosas. Estas prácticas no solo nos contactan con múltiples sitios de la realidad, sino que también nos invitan a adoptar el pluralismo como una forma eficaz de incrementar nuestro conocimiento científico de la naturaleza.
Citas
Atran, S., Medin, D. L. (2008). The native mind and the cultural construction of nature. Cambridge: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7683.001.0001
Bonner, J. T. (2001). First signals. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400830589
Bouchard, F., Huneman, P. (Eds.) (2013). From groups to individuals: evolution and emerging individuality. Cambridge: MIT Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8921.001.0001
Buss, L. W. (1987). The Evolution of Individuality. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7zvwtj
Chang, H. (2012). Is water H2O? Evidence, realism, and pluralism. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3932-1
Chang, H. (2017). VI—Operational Coherence as the Source of Truth. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 117(2), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1093/arisoc/aox004
Chang, H. (2018). Is pluralism compatible with scientific realism?. En Saatsi, J. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of scientific realism, pp. 176-186. Oxford: Routledge.
Chauvier, S. (2015). Why Individuality Matters. En Guay, A., Pradeu, T. (Eds.), Individuals Across the Sciences, pp. 25-45. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199382514.003.0002
Chauvier, S. (2017). Individuality and aggregativity. Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology, 9(11), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3998/ptb.6959004.0009.011
Chen, R. L. (2015). Experimental Realization of Individuality. En Guay, A., Pradeu, T. (Eds.), Individuals Across the Sciences, pp. 348-370. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199382514.003.0018
Clarke, E. (2010). The Problem of Biological Individuality. Biological Theory, 5(4), 312-325. https://doi.org/10.1162/BIOT_a_00068
Clarke, E. (2013). The Multiple Realizability of Biological Individuals. Journal of Philosophy, 110(8), 413-435. https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil2013110817
Dupré, J. (1993). The disorder of things: Metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Dupré, J. (2012). Processes of life: Essays in the philosophy of biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199691982.001.0001
Eisen-Enosh, A., Farah, N., Burgansky-Eliash, Z., Polat, U. y Mandel, Y. (2017). Evaluation of Critical Flicker-Fusion Frequency Measurement Methods for the Investigation of Visual Temporal Resolution. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 15621.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15034-z
Ellis, B. (1988). Internal realism. Synthese, 76(3), 409-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00869609
Elwick, J. (2017). Distrust That Particular Intuition: Resilient Essentialisms and Empirical Challenges in the History of Biological Individuality. En Lidgard, S., Nyhart, L. K. (Eds.), Biological Individuality, pp. 277-296. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226446592.003.0012
Ereshefsky, M., Pedroso, M. (2013). Biological individuality: the case of biofilms. Biology & Philosophy, 28(2), 331-349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-012-9340-4
Flemming, HC., Wingender, J., Szewzyk, U. et al. (2016). Biofilms: an emergent form of bacterial life. Nat Rev Microbiol, 14, 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2016.94
Ghiselin, M.T. (1974). A radical solution to the species problem. Systematic Zoology, 23(4), 536-544. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/23.4.536
Giere, R. N. (2006a). Scientific perspectivism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226292144.001.0001
Giere, R. N. (2006b). Perspectival pluralism. En Kellert, S. H., Longino, H. E., Waters, C. K. (Eds.), Scientific Pluralism, pp. 26-41. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2013). Darwinian individuals. En Bouchard, F., Huneman, P. (Eds.), From groups to individuals: evolution and emerging individuality, pp. 17-36. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Guay, A., Pradeu, T. (Eds.). (2015a). Individuals Across the Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199382514.001.0001
Guay, A., Pradeu, T. (2015b). To Be Continued: The Genidentity of Physical and Biological Processes. En Guay, A., Pradeu, T. (eds.), Individuals Across the Sciences, pp. 317-347. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199382514.003.0017
Haber, M. (2013). Colonies are individuals: revisiting the superorganism revival. En Bouchard, F., Huneman, P. (Eds.), From groups to individuals: evolution and emerging individuality, pp. 195-218. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814563
Healy, K., Mcnally, L., Ruxton, G. D., Cooper, N., Jackson, A. L. (2013). Metabolic rate and body size are linked with perception of temporal information. Animal Behaviour, 86(4), 685-696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.06.018
Hölldobler, B., Wilson, E. O. (2009). The superorganism: the beauty, elegance, and strangeness of insect societies. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Hull, D.L. (1976). Are Species Really Individuals?. Systematic Zoology, 25(2), 174-191. https://doi.org/10.2307/2412744
Hull, D.L. (1978). A Matter of Individuality. Philosophy of Science, 45(3), 335-360. https://doi.org/10.1086/288811
Kaiser, M. I. (2018). Individuating part-whole relations in the biological world. En Bueno, O., Chen, R.L., Fagan, M.B. (Eds.), Individuation, Process, and Scientific Practices, pp. 63-89. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190636814.001.0001
Kitcher, P. (1992). Gene: current usages. En Keller, E. F., Lloyd, E. A. (Eds.), Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, pp. 128-131. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lidgard, S., Nyhart, L. K. (Eds.). (2017a). Biological Individuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226446592.001.0001
Lidgard, S., Nyhart, L.K. (2017b). The work of biological individuality: concepts and contexts. En Lidgard, S., Nyhart, L.K. (Eds.), Biological Individuality, pp. 17-62. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226446592.003.0002
Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691187013
Love, A. C., Brigandt, I. (2017). Philosophical Dimensions of Individuality. En Lidgard, S., Nyhart, L.K. (Eds.), Biological Individuality, pp. 318-348. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226446592.003.0014
Margulis, L. (1967). On the origin of mitosing cells. Journal of theoretical biology, 14(3), 225-IN6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(67)90079-3
Massimi, M. (2018). Perspectivism. En Saatsi, J. (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Realism, pp.164-175. Oxford: Routledge.
Medin, D. L., Atran, S. (1999). Folkbiology. Cambridge: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3042.001.0001
Molter, D. (2017). On Mushroom Individuality. Philosophy of Science, 84(5), 1117-1127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/694011
Moritz, R., Southwick, E. E. (1992). Bees as superorganisms: an evolutionary reality. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media. DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-84666-3
Mullineaux, C. W. (2015). Bacteria in solitary confinement. Journal of Bacteriology, 197(4), 670-671. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.02509-14
Nicholson, D.J., Dupré, J. (2018). Everything Flows: Towards a Processual Philosophy of Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198779636.001.0001
Niklas, K.J, Newman, S.A. (2016). Multicellularity. Origins and Evolution. Cambridge: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10525.001.0001
O’Malley, M. (2014). Philosophy of Microbiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139162524
Pradeu, T. (2016). Organisms or biological individuals? Combining physiological and evolutionary individuality. Biology & Philosophy, 31(6), 797-817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-016-9551-1
Putnam, H. (1975). What is mathematical truth?. En Putnam, H. (Ed.), Mathematics, matter, and method. Philosophical papers, vol. 1, pp. 60-78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Queller, D. C., Strassmann, J. E. (2009). Beyond society: the evolution of organismality. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1533), 3143-3155. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0095
Reynolds, A.S. (2017). Discovering the ties that bind: cell-cell communication and the development of cell sociology. En Lidgard, S., Nyhart, L.K. (Eds.), Biological Individuality, pp. 109-128. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226446592.003.0005
Shapiro, J. A. (1998). Thinking about bacterial populations as multicellular organisms. Annual Review of Microbiology, 52, 81-104. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.micro.52.1.81
Smith, J. M., Szathmary, E. (1997). The major transitions in evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198502944.001.0001
Strassmann, J. E., Queller, D. C. (2010). The Social Organism: Congresses, Parties, and Committees. Evolution, 64(3), 605-616. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00929.x
van Inwagen, P. (2018). Metaphysics. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429495021
Waters, C. K. (2018). Ask Not “What Is an Individual?”. En Bueno, O., Chen, R.L., Fagan, M.B. (Eds.), Individuation, Process, and Scientific Practices, pp. 91-113. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190636814.003.0005
Wilson, D. S., Sober, E. (1989). Reviving the superorganism. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 136(3), 337-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5193(89)80169-9
Wilson, J. (1999). Biological Individuality: The Identity and Persistence of Living Entities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139137140
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Aquellos autores/as que tengan publicaciones con esta revista, aceptan los términos siguientes:
- Los autores/as conservarán sus derechos de autor y garantizarán a la revista el derecho de primera publicación de su obra, el cual estará simultáneamente sujeto a la Licencia de reconocimiento de Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International) que permite a terceros compartir la obra siempre que se indique su autor y su primera publicación esta revista.
- Los autores/as podrán adoptar otros acuerdos de licencia no exclusiva de distribución de la versión de la obra publicada (p. ej.: depositarla en un archivo telemático institucional o publicarla en un volumen monográfico) siempre que se indique la publicación inicial en esta revista.
- Se permite y recomienda a los autores/as difundir su obra a través de Internet (p. ej.: en archivos telemáticos institucionales o en su página web) antes y durante el proceso de envío, lo cual puede producir intercambios interesantes y aumentar las citas de la obra publicada. (Véase El efecto del acceso abierto).