Interaction: A case of "epistemological exaptation" in the life sciences

Titolo Rivista: PARADIGMI
Autori/Curatori: Giulia Frezza
Anno di pubblicazione: 2017 Fascicolo: 2 Lingua: Italiano
Numero pagine: 16 P. 191-206 Dimensione file: 177 KB
DOI: 10.3280/PARA2017-002013
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit.
Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

The concept of interaction is crucial in current life sciences due to its wide use in various fields such as genetics, epigenetics, biomedicine, and epidemiology. Nevertheless, the meaning of the term is ambiguous and its use is subject to criticism. Its generality and cross-disciplinary use could lead to conceiving it as abstract or metaphorical and in epidemiology was object of debate for 40 years. This work aims to outline a preliminary historical-epistemological analysis tracing the scientific background of the concept of interaction. Specifically: it will discuss how the notion of interaction was grounded in early 20th century physics and Gestalttheorie, and then moved into the field of biology; therefore, common patterns in the various definitions of interaction and the epistemological space they have produced through their respective historical correspondences will be pointed out. This is what the author defines the «epistemological exaptation» of the concept of interaction.

  1. Alberghina L. and Westerhoff H.V., eds. (2005). Systems Biology: Definitions and Perspectives. Berlin-NewYork: Springer.
  2. Berthoz A. (1997). Le sens du mouvement. Paris: Odile Jacob.
  3. Bohr N. (1920). Über die Serienspektra der Element. Zeitschrift für Physik, 2(5): 423-478.
  4. Boniolo G. and Testa G. (2012). The Identity of Living Beings, Epigenetics, and the Modesty of Philosophy. Erkenntnis, 76(2): 279-298,
  5. Burian R.M. (2000). On the Internal Dynamics of Mendelian Genetics. Sciences de la vie/Life Sciences, 323: 1127-1137, doi : 10.1016/s0764-4469(00)01248-8.
  6. Cartwright N.D. and Bradburn N. (2011). A Theory of Measurement. In: R.M. Li, The importance of common metrics for advancing social science theory and research: a workshop summary. Washington: National Academies Press: 53-56.
  7. Cartwright N.D. and Efstathiou S. (2011). Hunting Causes and Using Them: Is There No Bridge from Here to There?. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 25(3): 223-241, DOI: 10.1080/02698595.2011.605245.
  8. Costa R. and Frezza G. (2014). Crossovers between Epigenesis and Epigenetics. A Multicenter Approach to the History of Epigenetics (1901-1975). Medicina nei Secoli, 27(19): 931-968.
  9. Dӧring M. and Zinken J. (2005). The Cultural Crafting of Embryonic Stem Cells: The Metaphorical Schematisation of Stem Cell Research in the Polish and French Press. Metaphorik.de, 08/2005.
  10. Edelman G.M. (1988). Topobiology. An Introduction to Molecular Embryology. New York: Basic Books.
  11. Efstathiou S. (2012). How Ordinary Race Concepts Get to Be Usable in Biomedical Science: an Account of Founded Race Concepts. Philosophy of Science, 79, 5: 701-13, DOI: 10.1086/667901
  12. Feynman R. (2006). The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Pasadena, CA: California Institute of Technology.
  13. Fischer A. et al. (2007). Recovery of Learning and Memory Is Associated with Chromatin Remodelling. Nature, 447, 178-182,
  14. Fox-Keller E. (1995). Refiguring Life: Metaphors of Twentieth-century Biology. New York: Columbia University Press.
  15. Fox Keller E. (2002). Making Sense of Life: Explaining Biological Development with Models, Metaphors, and Machines. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  16. Frezza G. (2013). The Concept of Interaction: Crossovers Among Biology, Logic and Philosophy. Pont de Bois: ANRT.
  17. Frezza G. (2013b). Eziologia. Una causa comune tra natura e cultura dall’eredità all’epigenetica. In: Gagliasso R. et al. (eds,), Percorsi evolutivi, Milano: Franco Angeli.
  18. Gagliasso E. (2009). Bauplan e vincoli di struttura, da ostacoli a strumenti. Discipline Filosofiche, 1: 93-110.
  19. Galton F. (1875). English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture. New York: D. Appleton.
  20. Galton F. (1907). Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development. London: MacMillan (original ed. 1883).
  21. Gibson J.J. (1879). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Hough-ton-Mifflin.
  22. Gilbert S.F. (1978). The Embryological Origins of the Gene Theory. Journal of the History of Biology, 11, 2: 307-351,
  23. Gilbert S.F. (2012). Commentary: ‘The Epigenotype’ by C.H. Waddington. International Journal of Epidemiology, 41: 20-23, doi : 10.1093/ije/dyr186.
  24. Glessgen M.-D. (2011). Le statut épistémologique du lexème. Revue de Linguistique Romane,75 (299-300), 337-416.
  25. Gottlieb G. (1992). Individual, Development & Evolution. Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press.
  26. Gould S.J. and Lewontin R.C. (1979). The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm. A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme. Proc. Royal Society, London, S.B, 205: 581-598,
  27. Gould S.J. and Vrba E. (1982). Exaptation. A Missing Term in the Science of Form. Paleobiology, 8 (1): 4-15,
  28. Haig D. (2004). The (Dual) Origin of Epigenetics. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, 69: 1-4,
  29. Hamburger V. (1988). The Heritage of Experimental Embryology: Hans Spemann and the Organizer. New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  30. Hellsten L. and Nerlich B. (2011). Synthetic Biology: Building the Language for a New Science Brick by Metaphorical Brick. New Genetics and Society, 30:4, 375-397, DOI: 10.1080/14636778.2011.592009
  31. Hesse M. (1963). Models and Analogies in Science. London: Sheed and Ward.
  32. Husserl E. (1913). Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie. In: Jahrbuch für Philosophie und phänomenologische Forschung, I, Halle: Max Niemeyer.
  33. Jacob F. (1977). Evolution and Tinkering. Science, 196, 4295: 1161-1166,
  34. Kauffman S.A. (1993). The Origins of Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  35. Kim J. (1990). Supervenience as a Philosophical Concept. Metaphilosophy, 21: 1-27,
  36. Köhler W. (1947). Gestalt Psychology. An Introduction to New Concepts in Mod-ern Psychology. New York: Liveright.
  37. Kuhn T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University Chicago Press.
  38. Kuhn T. (1979). Metaphor in Science. In: Ortony A., ed., Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 409-419.
  39. Lakoff G. and Johnson M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University Chicago Press.
  40. Laudan L. (1990). Normative Naturalism. Philosophy of Science, 57: 1: 44-59, DOI: 10.1086/289530
  41. Lawlor D. (2011). Biologic Interaction: Time to Drop the Term?. Epidemiology, 22: 148-150,
  42. Longo G. (2012). Incomputability in Physics and Biology. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 22, 5: 880-900,
  43. Longo G. and Frezza G. (2010). Crossing-over sul vivente. In: Gagliasso E. and Frezza G. (a cura di). Metafore del vivente. Franco Angeli: Milano.
  44. Maienschein J. (1991). The Origins of Entwicklungsmechanik. In: Gilbert S.F., ed., A Conceptual History of Modern Embryology. New York: Plenum.
  45. Maienschein J. and Laubichler M.D. (eds.) (2007). From Embryology to Evo-devo. A History of Developmental Evolution, London-Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  46. Morgan T.H. (1917). The Theory of the Gene. The American Naturalist, 51, 609: 513-544.
  47. Morgan T.H. (1934). Embryology and Genetics, New York: Columbia University Press.
  48. Nurse P. (2008). Life, Logic and Information. Nature, 454: 424-426,
  49. Oppenheimer J.R. (1954-1955). The Open Mind. Science and the Common Understanding. New York: Simon and Schuster.
  50. Popper K.R. (1972). Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  51. Radnitzky G. and Bartley B. (eds.) (1987). Evolutionary Epistemology, Rationality, and the Sociology of Knowledge. La Salle, IL: Open Court.
  52. Rizzolatti G. and Craighero L. (2004). The Mirror-neuron System. Ann.Rev.Neurosc., 27: 169-192,
  53. Rosenthal V. and Visetti Y.-M. (1999). Sens et temps de la Gestalt. Intellectica, 1, 28: 147-227.
  54. Rothman K.J. (1974). Synergy and Antagonism in Cause-effect Relationships. Am.J. Epidemiol., 99: 385-388,
  55. Rothman K.J., Greenland S. and Walker A.M. (1980). Concept of Interactions. Am. J. Epidem., 112, 4: 467-470,
  56. Sale A., Berardi N. and Maffei L. (2009). Enrich the Environment to Empower the Brain. Trends in Neurosciences, 32: 233-238,
  57. Spemann H. and Mangold H. (1924). Über Induktion von Embryonalagen durch Implantation Artfremder Organisatoren. Roux' Arch. Entw. Mech., 100: 599-638.
  58. Waddington C.H. (1940). Organisers and Genes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Giulia Frezza, Interaction: A case of "epistemological exaptation" in the life sciences in "PARADIGMI" 2/2017, pp 191-206, DOI: 10.3280/PARA2017-002013