The concept of levels of organization in the biological sciences
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Chapter One .Intuitive Appeal and Ubiquity of 'Levels' (2013; 2014) has recently published two insightful papers on the levels concept, and Alan Love (2012), along with Ingo Brigandt (Brigandt and Love 2012), also offer an interesting analysis of the scientific use of 'levels' in the context of questions about causation and pluralistic explanation, respectively.Other authors, including those mentioned above, mentioned above (Rueger and McGivern 2010;Potochnik and McGill 2012), also point out the lack of such sustained analysis of 'levels' as an impetus for their respective treatments of the concept.Nonetheless the character and significance of the levels concept remains largely an open question. Analyzing 'Levels of Organization' in Biological ScienceThe task taken up in this dissertation will not be to take a position in any one of the particular debates in which levels play a role (e.g., reduction, emergence, and causation).Instead, this dissertation will analyze the concept of levels as it is used in the biological sciences.More specifically, this endeavor will entail explicating 3 the character and significance of the concept of 'levels of organization' for explanation in the biological sciences.By 'character' is meant, very roughly, what scientists take to the term 'levels' to mean.The two terms 'character' and 'meaning' are not interchangeable, however.'Meaning' is a more specialized term in philosophy, and is traditionally used to express the semantic content of a word or mechanistic explanation, and even contrasting the levels concept with Marr's "levels of analysis" framework.Likewise, Carl Craver has in a new (2015) paper also revisited the levels concept, and builds on his (2007a, Ch.5) analysis of levels by clarifying further his 'defining questions' approach to understanding levels (ibid.; see Chapter 2 for more details), and contextualizing his own mechanistic conception of levels among the many cognates of the levels concept.These two papers come as a particular surprise, given the lack of such papers during the duration of this dissertation's writing, and indeed given the silence on the issue of the levels concept in philosophy generally.Another area of philosophy where the levels concept has continued to 'run rampant' since the submission of this dissertation is the discussion of issues pertaining to non-fundamental causation (particularly top-down causation, higher-level causation, and causation in biology generally).Here, two recent papers (i.e.Hoffmann-Kolss 2014; Franklin-Hall 2014) have thematized levels of organization, albeit indirectly, in their arguments against attempts to articulate higher-level causation (especially in biology).The contributions offered in the analysis of this dissertation is proving to be, if nothing else, a timely choice in topic.'Levels of organization' are used additionally to endorse a pluralist approach to explaining
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».