Two scientific perspectives on nerve signal propagation: how incompatible approaches jointly promote progress in explanatory understanding.

IF 1.6 3区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences Pub Date : 2024-11-21 DOI:10.1007/s40656-024-00644-4
Linda Holland, Henk W de Regt, Benjamin Drukarch
{"title":"Two scientific perspectives on nerve signal propagation: how incompatible approaches jointly promote progress in explanatory understanding.","authors":"Linda Holland, Henk W de Regt, Benjamin Drukarch","doi":"10.1007/s40656-024-00644-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We present a case study of two scientific perspectives on the phenomenon of nerve signal propagation, a bio-electric and a thermodynamic perspective, and compare this case with two accounts of scientific perspectivism: those of Michela Massimi and Juha Saatsi, respectively. We demonstrate that the interaction between the bio-electric perspective and the thermodynamic perspective can be captured in Saatsi's terms of progress in explanatory understanding. Using insights from our case study, we argue that both the epistemic and pragmatic dimensions of scientific understanding are important for increasing explanatory understanding of phenomena. The epistemic dimension of understanding is important for increasing the number of actually answered what-if-things-had-been-different questions about a phenomenon, the pragmatic dimension for pointing out the potentially answerable what-if questions that have been overlooked or purposefully neglected thus far. Exposing the limitations of the acquired understanding within a particular perspective can be achieved by criticizing the assumptions that have been adopted to make models of the perspective intelligible, but that are considered problematic from a rival perspective.</p>","PeriodicalId":56308,"journal":{"name":"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences","volume":"46 4","pages":"43"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-024-00644-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We present a case study of two scientific perspectives on the phenomenon of nerve signal propagation, a bio-electric and a thermodynamic perspective, and compare this case with two accounts of scientific perspectivism: those of Michela Massimi and Juha Saatsi, respectively. We demonstrate that the interaction between the bio-electric perspective and the thermodynamic perspective can be captured in Saatsi's terms of progress in explanatory understanding. Using insights from our case study, we argue that both the epistemic and pragmatic dimensions of scientific understanding are important for increasing explanatory understanding of phenomena. The epistemic dimension of understanding is important for increasing the number of actually answered what-if-things-had-been-different questions about a phenomenon, the pragmatic dimension for pointing out the potentially answerable what-if questions that have been overlooked or purposefully neglected thus far. Exposing the limitations of the acquired understanding within a particular perspective can be achieved by criticizing the assumptions that have been adopted to make models of the perspective intelligible, but that are considered problematic from a rival perspective.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
神经信号传播的两种科学视角:互不兼容的方法如何共同促进解释性理解的进步。
我们对神经信号传播现象的两种科学视角--生物电视角和热力学视角--进行了案例研究,并将这一案例与米切拉-马西米(Michela Massimi)和尤哈-萨特西(Juha Saatsi)对科学视角主义的两种论述进行了比较。我们证明,生物电视角与热力学视角之间的互动可以用萨特西的 "解释性理解的进步 "来概括。通过案例研究的启示,我们认为科学理解的认识层面和实践层面对于提高对现象的解释性理解都很重要。认识层面的理解对于增加实际回答的有关现象的 "如果事情发生了变化 "问题的数量非常重要,而实践层面的理解对于指出迄今为止被忽视或故意忽略的潜在可回答的 "如果 "问题也非常重要。要揭示在特定视角下所获得的理解的局限性,可以通过批评一些假设来实现,这些假设使该视角的模型具有可理解性,但从另一个视角来看却被认为是有问题的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 综合性期刊-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences is an interdisciplinary journal committed to providing an integrative approach to understanding the life sciences. It welcomes submissions from historians, philosophers, biologists, physicians, ethicists and scholars in the social studies of science. Contributors are expected to offer broad and interdisciplinary perspectives on the development of biology, biomedicine and related fields, especially as these perspectives illuminate the foundations, development, and/or implications of scientific practices and related developments. Submissions which are collaborative and feature different disciplinary approaches are especially encouraged, as are submissions written by senior and junior scholars (including graduate students).
期刊最新文献
Two scientific perspectives on nerve signal propagation: how incompatible approaches jointly promote progress in explanatory understanding. A strategy to what end? "The strategy of model building in population biology" in its programmatic context. Inventing with bacteriology: controversy over anti-cholera therapeutic serum and tensions between transnational science and local practice in Tokyo and Berlin (1890-1902). Matteo Vagelli, Reconsidering historical epistemology: French and anglophone styles in history and philosophy of science, 2024. Springer. Normative implications of postgenomic deterministic narratives: the case study of epigenetic harm.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1