理论与实验:蛋白质动态观的兴起

IF 1.4 2区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Pub Date : 2024-06-20 DOI:10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.05.009
Jacob P. Neal
{"title":"理论与实验:蛋白质动态观的兴起","authors":"Jacob P. Neal","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.05.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Over the past century, the scientific conception of the protein has evolved significantly. This paper focuses on the most recent stage of this evolution, namely, the origin of the dynamic view of proteins and the challenge it posed to the static view of classical molecular biology. Philosophers and scientists have offered two hypotheses to explain the origin of the dynamic view and its slow reception by structural biologists. Some have argued that the shift from the static to the dynamic view was a Kuhnian revolution, driven by the accumulation of dynamic anomalies, while others have argued that the shift was caused by new empirical findings made possible by technological advances. I analyze this scientific episode and ultimately reject both of these empiricist accounts. I argue that focusing primarily on technological advances and empirical discoveries overlooks the important role of theory in driving this scientific change. I show how the application of general thermodynamic principles to proteins gave rise to the dynamic view, and a commitment to these principles then led early adopters to seek out the empirical examples of protein dynamics, which would eventually convince their peers. My analysis of this historical case shows that empiricist accounts of modern scientific progress—at least those that aim to explain developments in the molecular life sciences—need to be tempered in order to capture the interplay between theory and experiment.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49467,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":"106 ","pages":"Pages 86-98"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Theory vs. experiment: The rise of the dynamic view of proteins\",\"authors\":\"Jacob P. Neal\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.05.009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Over the past century, the scientific conception of the protein has evolved significantly. This paper focuses on the most recent stage of this evolution, namely, the origin of the dynamic view of proteins and the challenge it posed to the static view of classical molecular biology. Philosophers and scientists have offered two hypotheses to explain the origin of the dynamic view and its slow reception by structural biologists. Some have argued that the shift from the static to the dynamic view was a Kuhnian revolution, driven by the accumulation of dynamic anomalies, while others have argued that the shift was caused by new empirical findings made possible by technological advances. I analyze this scientific episode and ultimately reject both of these empiricist accounts. I argue that focusing primarily on technological advances and empirical discoveries overlooks the important role of theory in driving this scientific change. I show how the application of general thermodynamic principles to proteins gave rise to the dynamic view, and a commitment to these principles then led early adopters to seek out the empirical examples of protein dynamics, which would eventually convince their peers. My analysis of this historical case shows that empiricist accounts of modern scientific progress—at least those that aim to explain developments in the molecular life sciences—need to be tempered in order to capture the interplay between theory and experiment.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science\",\"volume\":\"106 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 86-98\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368124000578\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368124000578","RegionNum":2,"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

摘要

在过去的一个世纪中,蛋白质的科学概念发生了重大演变。本文重点探讨这一演变的最新阶段,即蛋白质动态观的起源及其对经典分子生物学静态观的挑战。哲学家和科学家提出了两种假设来解释动态观点的起源以及结构生物学家对动态观点的缓慢接受。一些人认为,从静态观点到动态观点的转变是一场库恩式的革命,是由动态异常现象的积累所推动的;而另一些人则认为,这种转变是由技术进步带来的新的经验发现所导致的。我分析了这一科学事件,并最终否定了这两种经验主义的说法。我认为,主要关注技术进步和经验发现忽略了理论在推动这一科学变革中的重要作用。我展示了一般热力学原理在蛋白质中的应用如何催生了动力学观点,而对这些原理的承诺又如何促使早期采用者寻找蛋白质动力学的经验范例,并最终说服他们的同行。我对这一历史案例的分析表明,现代科学进步的经验主义论述--至少是那些旨在解释分子生命科学发展的论述--需要加以节制,以便捕捉理论与实验之间的相互作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Theory vs. experiment: The rise of the dynamic view of proteins

Over the past century, the scientific conception of the protein has evolved significantly. This paper focuses on the most recent stage of this evolution, namely, the origin of the dynamic view of proteins and the challenge it posed to the static view of classical molecular biology. Philosophers and scientists have offered two hypotheses to explain the origin of the dynamic view and its slow reception by structural biologists. Some have argued that the shift from the static to the dynamic view was a Kuhnian revolution, driven by the accumulation of dynamic anomalies, while others have argued that the shift was caused by new empirical findings made possible by technological advances. I analyze this scientific episode and ultimately reject both of these empiricist accounts. I argue that focusing primarily on technological advances and empirical discoveries overlooks the important role of theory in driving this scientific change. I show how the application of general thermodynamic principles to proteins gave rise to the dynamic view, and a commitment to these principles then led early adopters to seek out the empirical examples of protein dynamics, which would eventually convince their peers. My analysis of this historical case shows that empiricist accounts of modern scientific progress—at least those that aim to explain developments in the molecular life sciences—need to be tempered in order to capture the interplay between theory and experiment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
166
审稿时长
6.6 weeks
期刊介绍: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science is devoted to the integrated study of the history, philosophy and sociology of the sciences. The editors encourage contributions both in the long-established areas of the history of the sciences and the philosophy of the sciences and in the topical areas of historiography of the sciences, the sciences in relation to gender, culture and society and the sciences in relation to arts. The Journal is international in scope and content and publishes papers from a wide range of countries and cultural traditions.
期刊最新文献
On the "direct detection" of gravitational waves. Intellectual inflation: one way for scientific research to degenerate. Measurement, decomposition and level-switching in historical science: Geochronology and the ontology of scientific methods. Believing in organisms: Kant's non-mechanistic philosophy of nature. Rewriting the Quantum "Revolution".
×
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