战略的目的是什么?计划背景下的 "群体生物学模型构建战略"。

IF 1.6 3区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences Pub Date : 2024-11-18 DOI:10.1007/s40656-024-00646-2
Zvi Hasnes-Beninson
{"title":"战略的目的是什么?计划背景下的 \"群体生物学模型构建战略\"。","authors":"Zvi Hasnes-Beninson","doi":"10.1007/s40656-024-00646-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>\"The Strategy of Model Building in Population Biology\" published by Richard Levins in 1966 has been cited over 2500 times. For a paper concerned with modeling approaches in population biology a surprisingly large part of the attention. The Strategy received comes from history and philosophy of biology, and specifically from accounts on model and model formulation. The Strategy is an unusual paper; it presents neither new data nor a new formal model; at times it reads like a manifesto for some modeling approach, without specifying which broader program that approach intends to support. When these peculiarities of The Strategy are even mentioned, the philosophical literature tends to explain them away by invoking Levins' Marxist commitments. In contrast, I argue that those peculiarities can be explained by examining the programmatic purpose of the paper; starting from his doctoral work, Levins was trying to establish a research program meant to account for the relations between fitness and environment in different terms than the prevalent lock-and-key view. My paper brings that program back to the discussion, explains its relation to competing approaches and examines Levins' approach to modeling in light of that context.</p>","PeriodicalId":56308,"journal":{"name":"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences","volume":"46 4","pages":"42"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11573825/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A strategy to what end? \\\"The strategy of model building in population biology\\\" in its programmatic context.\",\"authors\":\"Zvi Hasnes-Beninson\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40656-024-00646-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>\\\"The Strategy of Model Building in Population Biology\\\" published by Richard Levins in 1966 has been cited over 2500 times. For a paper concerned with modeling approaches in population biology a surprisingly large part of the attention. The Strategy received comes from history and philosophy of biology, and specifically from accounts on model and model formulation. The Strategy is an unusual paper; it presents neither new data nor a new formal model; at times it reads like a manifesto for some modeling approach, without specifying which broader program that approach intends to support. When these peculiarities of The Strategy are even mentioned, the philosophical literature tends to explain them away by invoking Levins' Marxist commitments. In contrast, I argue that those peculiarities can be explained by examining the programmatic purpose of the paper; starting from his doctoral work, Levins was trying to establish a research program meant to account for the relations between fitness and environment in different terms than the prevalent lock-and-key view. My paper brings that program back to the discussion, explains its relation to competing approaches and examines Levins' approach to modeling in light of that context.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56308,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences\",\"volume\":\"46 4\",\"pages\":\"42\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11573825/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-024-00646-2\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-024-00646-2","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

摘要

理查德-莱文斯(Richard Levins)于 1966 年发表的 "群体生物学建模策略 "一文已被引用超过 2500 次。对于一篇与群体生物学建模方法有关的论文来说,其中很大一部分关注度令人吃惊。战略》一文所受到的关注来自生物学史和生物学哲学,特别是关于模型和模型建立的论述。战略》是一篇不寻常的论文;它既没有提出新的数据,也没有提出新的形式模型;有时,它读起来像是某种建模方法的宣言,却没有说明这种方法打算支持哪种更广泛的计划。当《战略》的这些特殊性被提及时,哲学文献往往会援引列文斯的马克思主义承诺来加以解释。与此相反,我认为可以通过研究该论文的纲领性目的来解释这些特殊性;列文斯从他的博士论文开始,就试图建立一个研究计划,以不同于流行的 "锁钥式 "观点来解释适应性与环境之间的关系。我的论文将这一计划带回讨论中,解释了它与其他竞争方法的关系,并根据这一背景研究了列文斯的建模方法。
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
A strategy to what end? "The strategy of model building in population biology" in its programmatic context.

"The Strategy of Model Building in Population Biology" published by Richard Levins in 1966 has been cited over 2500 times. For a paper concerned with modeling approaches in population biology a surprisingly large part of the attention. The Strategy received comes from history and philosophy of biology, and specifically from accounts on model and model formulation. The Strategy is an unusual paper; it presents neither new data nor a new formal model; at times it reads like a manifesto for some modeling approach, without specifying which broader program that approach intends to support. When these peculiarities of The Strategy are even mentioned, the philosophical literature tends to explain them away by invoking Levins' Marxist commitments. In contrast, I argue that those peculiarities can be explained by examining the programmatic purpose of the paper; starting from his doctoral work, Levins was trying to establish a research program meant to account for the relations between fitness and environment in different terms than the prevalent lock-and-key view. My paper brings that program back to the discussion, explains its relation to competing approaches and examines Levins' approach to modeling in light of that context.

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
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