IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v4y2014i1p2158244014529134.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Shot in the Arm for Philosophy of Biology

Author

Listed:
  • Constance Bradley

Abstract

This article analyzes infectious diseases (IDs) within a philosophy of biology framework to locate factors that play a role in the development of a successful account of IDs. One way to handle the analysis of kinds in biology is through a traditional essentialist approach whereby biological entities are construed as natural kinds with essences. Approaching IDs in this way is unworkable, however, because it is difficult to find essences that occur in all and only IDs. Rather than engaging IDs from this perspective, my analysis of the nature of IDs more appropriately falls under the rubric of philosophy of biology whereby I treat particular IDs as products of evolution with a unique relationship to the biological hierarchy. This approach is what I refer to as an evolutionary perspective of IDs because it emphasizes that the constituent mechanisms and processes of ID are sensitive to evolutionary pressures. Such an approach is useful because it allows us to sidestep difficulties pervasive traditional kind essentialist accounts of ID. To begin, I analyze two contemporary methods for analyzing kinds in biology—Richard Boyd’s Homeostatic Property Cluster (HPC) kind approach and Paul Griffiths’ treatment of kinds with historical essences. I discuss both approaches and identify the limitations of each that prevent a successful account of IDs. I then analyze how elements of each account can be revised into a successful philosophy of biology approach to IDs. The article is concluded with a brief discussion of the benefit of incorporating an evolutionary perspective into the analysis of IDs and outlines future projects that result from approaching IDs from an evolutionary perspective.

Suggested Citation

  • Constance Bradley, 2014. "A Shot in the Arm for Philosophy of Biology," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440145, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:4:y:2014:i:1:p:2158244014529134
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244014529134
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244014529134
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244014529134?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:4:y:2014:i:1:p:2158244014529134. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.