Link between Philosophy and Biology?

Question

I know this is a very broad, invovled topic, Any opnions, or information I can get towards this would certainly be helpful. Any famous philosophers who worked in the biological field, or vice versa I should know about, etc, or any information regarding a specific field of study. This question is pretty free-form, so post away.

Answer 1

Joseph Priestly, the Philosopher and founder of the Unitarian Universalist Church, was a chemistry professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Albert Einstein's theories enabled the construction of the Atom Bomb but he was a philosopher of peace.

William Osler introduced the scientific method to medicine and biomedical science but he was also a famous philosopher of medicine and was concerned about patient autonomy and informed consent at a time when a doctor didn't ask a patient's consent to do a procedure or decide how to treat.

Gregor Mendel, the putative discoverer of the rules of genetics, was also a catholic monk.

One strong connection between Philosophy and Biology is that both benefit from strong use of logical arguments and hypotheses built on inferential logic were proven by deductive reasoning.

Answer 2

The first biologist was Aristotle. His philosophy was built around what we now call 'scientific' and especially 'biological' considerations. His philosophy/biology was teleological - which means a central concept of it was that things are the way they are because of their 'end' or function.

The concepts that Aristotle used and are still very influential in biology are the concepts of 'final cause' (function) and 'formal cause' (structure). These concepts are used to explain a thing's structure in terms of its function. For example, the circulatory system is structured as branching tubes with valves and a pump because its function is to circulate blood through the body.

These explanatory concepts are often criticized as being unnecessary by those who hold that science can explain all things in terms of cause and effect. You will notice that final-formal explains the present in terms of the future, but cause-effect explains the present in terms of the past.

Another 'biology oriented' philosopher was Henri Bergson who argued that living organisms could not be fully explained in terms of either function-structure or cause-effect and that the concept of 'elan vital' - life force - was also needed.

Also, there is a philosophical position called 'biocentrism' which holds that biological organisms, particularly humans, are not merely the most developed form of matter but are the ultimate 'reason' for the existence of the universe. This is not necessarily a religious or theistic position.

Biology is subject to the same philosophical questions as the other sciences, questions about what its aims are; what methods it does or should use to further those aims; whether the entities its theories speak of are 'real'; whether the knowledge it provides is 'true'; and, of course, a whole lot of moral and ethical issues about the use of biotechnology.

Answer 3

I can only link the two in a very simplified physical symbiosis.

Philosophy, in large part, is spiritual in nature. Not spiritual in a theistic sense but rather a manner of thought, intangible yet existing.

Biology is the means by which is produced a brain, usually with a mind with which to formulate philosophy.

Therefore, the relationship between the two is inextricably linked, but only in a straight forward "you can't have one without the other" type of interaction.

Put another way, philosophy and biology are linked through physiology.

Answer 4

I am sure you have much better answers that this, but I thought I would put my 2 cents in. Determinism and Reductionism are both Biologically and Philosophically (or more specifically Ethically) related. If you don't get why let me know and I will go into more detail.

Answer 5

Aristotle may be said to be d first biologist in d Western tradition. Though there are physicians & other natural philosophers who remark on various flora & fauna before Aristotle, none of them brings to his study a systematic critical empiricism. Aristotle’s biological science is important to understand, not only because it gives us a view into d history & philosophy of science, but also because it allows us more deeply to understand his non-biological works, since certain key concepts from Aristotle’s biology repeat themselves in his other writings. Since a significant portion of d corpus of Aristotle’s work is on biology, it is natural to expect his work in biology to resonate in his other writings. One may, for example, use concepts from d biological works to better understand d ethics or metaphysics of Aristotle.

Answer 6

Genetic & making life..