This is an attempt to interpret the history of mechanism vs. vitalism in relation to the changing framework of culture and to show the interrelation between both these views and experimental science. After the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century, causal mechanism of classical physics provided the framework for the study of nature. The teleological and holistic properties of life, however, which are incompatible with this theory yielded — as a result both of internal developments within biology and of a (...) general reaction against dogmatic rationalism — to a vitalistic interpretation of life which ascribed a mysterious force to living organisms. It will be shown that both mechanism and vitalism are related to the experimental climate of the time in which they were popular. The controversy has now lost its raison d'être as a result of the development of the theory of systems and of a better understanding of the chemistry and evolution of life. (shrink)

Ich rekonstruiere und kritisiere Hans Drieschs Argumentation für die Behauptung, daß biologischen Prozessen nur eine substanzdualistische Ontologie der belebten Materie (Vitalismus) gerecht werden kann. Meine Diagnose lautet, daß Drieschs Argumentation zwar logisch schlüssig ist bzw. durch leichte Modifikationen in eine logisch gültige Form gebracht werden kann, aber von empirisch unbegründeten, metaphysischen Prämissen über die Möglichkeiten eines energieumwandelnden Mechanismus ausgeht.

The concept of plasticity has always been present in the history of developmental biology, both within the theory of epigenesis and within morphogenesis studies. However this tradition relies also upon a genetic conception of plasticity. Founded upon the concepts of ‘‘phenotypic plasticity’’ and ‘‘reaction norm,’’ this genetic conception focuses on the array of possible phenotypic change in relation to diversified environments. Another concept of plasticity can be found in recent publications by some developmental biologists (Gilbert, West-Eberhard). I argue that these (...) authors adopt a ‘‘broad conception of plasticity’’ that is closely related to a notion of development as something that is ongoing throughout an organism’s lifecycle, and has no clear-cut boundaries. However, I suggest that given a narrow conception of plasticity, one can define temporal boundaries for development that are linked to specific features of the morphological process, which are different from behavioral and physiological processes. (shrink)

Essay Review: Medicine To Make You Mad Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America by Robert Whitaker Henry H. Bauer Essay Review: Apparitions of the Living: The Views of William H. Harrison and Gabriel Delanne Spirits Before Our Eyes by William H. Harrison Les Apparitions Matérialisées des Vivants & des Morts. Vol. 1: Les Fantômes de Vivants [Materialized Apparitions of the Living and of the Dead. Vol. 1: Phantoms of the (...) Living] by Gabriel Delanne Carlos S. Alvarado Phantasms of the Living by Edmund Gurney, Frederic W. H. Myers, and Frank Podmore Bryan J. Williams Nonsense on Stilts: How To Tell Science from Bunk by Massimo Pigliucci Constantin Cranganu Nonsense on Stilts: How To Tell Science from Bunk by Massimo Pigliucci Hannah Jenkins The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics by David Harriman Michael Davidson Paranormal America: Ghost Encounters, UFO Sightings, Bigfoot Hunts, and Other Curiosities in Religion and Culture by Christopher D. Bader, F. Carson Mencken, and Joseph O. Baker Mark Rodeghier Loch Ness, Nessie, & Me: The Truth Revealed by Tony Harmsworth Karl P. N. Shuker Conscious Connections: About Parapsychology and Holistic Biology by Göran Brusewitz Michael Nahm Science & Spirit by Hernani Guimarães Andrade Wellington Zangari & Fatima Regina Machado The Sixth Sense Reader edited by David Howes Patric Giesler. (shrink)

A study is made of the general principles and theories pertaining to evolution, among which the definition, the evidences, the philosophical roots , the three models , and a further development of the last-mentioned model.

p. 13: But if Mayr himself was an unconscious 'physicalist', why did he argue so forcefully against the machine theory of life? In part his dissatisfaction with this approach can be explained as a residue of earlier experiences. When he started to argue for the autonomy of biology in the early 1960s, the unique, emergent characteristics of organisms were ignored by the philosophy of science which was dominated by physics (Greene 1994; Hull 1994). In this situation Mayr not only criticised (...) this particular neglect as reductionism, but questioned the usefulness of the physicalist approach for biology in general. In recent decades this situation has clearly changed and this was also due to Mayr's relentless fight for the recognition of the unique aspects of biology. Nevertheless he stuck to his broad rejection and ignored developments toward a more sophisticated view (cf. Emmeche, Koppe and Stjernfelt 1997). But there is probably more to it. His second motivation is an emotional aversion against connotations and implications of the word 'machine'. The view that organisms-including humans!-are 'survival machines', 'robot vehicles' programmed to preserve their genes conveys a deterministic and mechanistic view that is perceived by many persons as a gross 'narcissistic insult' (Freud 1917, pp. 6, 7). It is a view that Mayr definitely did not appreciate. (shrink)

The laws of vital phenomena are to a high degree in contradiction with the principle of absolute causality. Hence the problem arises, what position and rank this principle occupies in biology. The solution of this contradiction might be found in a relaxation of the principle, or in its broadening or by means of the addition of a second heterogenic principle of relationship.The first solution is today rather in favour, since modern physics, especially based on the ”Uncertainty Principle” ofHeisenberg, is inclined (...) to repudiate a strictly causal connection of events in the realm of atomic processes.Broadening of the principle of causality is aimed at to a certain degree by the doctrine of holism. According to this theory biological axioms, principles, and laws are the more universal and the more widely valid, and physical laws should be deduced from them by simplification .The third way is followed by vitalistic doctrines.The ”trialistic” doctrine, presented by the author, represents a development of vitalistic theory. It does not content itself with establishing the fact of the heterogenity of causal and biological laws, but tries to go beyond this and to understand, why the laws of the organic world are of just their special kind and not of another. Moreover it attempts to fit these distinctive principles into the universal system of laws. The trialistic theory divides the wholeness of events into three fundamentally different ”dimensions”, into ”matter”, ”psyche” and ”spirit”, or within the special sphere of living forms into: material, vital and organismic ”dimension”. While in the material sphere the causal connection remains dominant, solely and absolutely, the spiritual or organismic ”dimension” is ruled by ”finality”, a mode of connection of a special kind, caracterized by an active influence on the present of the non-realised future.The interposition of a neutral sphere opens up the possibility of understanding the interweaving of causal and final laws, without interference with one another.Les lois des apparitions de la vie sont difficilement conciliables avec le principe d'une causalité absolue. Le problème se pose donc de savoir, quelle position et quel rÔle ce principe occupe en biologie. La solution de cette contradiction pourrait Être trouvée dans une atténuation ou un élargissement de ce principe comme tel ou par l'adjonction d'un second principe de liaison hétérogène.La première solution est en faveur aujourd'hui depuis que la physique moderne, s'appuyant principalement sur la „Unsicherheitsrelation” deHeisenberg, tend à renoncer à une liaison strictement causale de ce qui se passe dans le domaine des processus atomiques.L'élargissement du principe de causalité est désiré en un certain sens par le holisme. Selon cette théorie les axiomes, les principes et les lois biologiques sont plus universels et d'une valeur plus étendue et il faut en déduire les règles physiques par dérivation simplifiante .La troisième solution nous est donnée par les doctrines vitalistes.La théorie présentée par l'auteur, appelée „trialiste”, met en avant un développement de la doctrine vitaliste. Il ne lui suffit pas de s'arrÊter à l'existence de l'hétérogénité des lois causales et biologiques, mais elle veut aller plus loin, afin de savoir pourquoi les règles déterminant l'organisme sont telles et pas autres. Et elle cherche à mettre de l'ordre dans les principes déterminants en les ènboÎtant dans le système universel de lois. La théorie trialiste divise l'univers des événements en trois „dimensions” qui sont: Matière, „Psyché” et Esprit, ou dans le domaine spécial des formes vivantes en: Matière, Dimension vitale et Dimension organismique. Tandis que dans la dimension matérielle la connexion causale est uniquement et absolument valable, la dimension spirituelle ou organismique est régie par la „Finalité”, un mode de connexion d'un genre spécial, désigné par une influence active du présent par le futur non réalisé.L'interposition d'une sphère neutre nous amène à la possibilité de comprendre l'enchaÎnement es lois causales et finales sans que les unes détruisent les autres. (shrink)

November 4th-5th, 2012 at Kyoto University. Organizers: Hisashi Nakao & Pierre-Alain Braillard.

The psychical researcher William Mackenzie (1877-1971) was born in Genoa of Scottish parents and spent almost his entire life in Italy, while formally remaining a British citizen. He studied at several Italian and European Universities, graduating in Biology and Philosophy, and in 1905 he established a marine biology laboratory in Quarto dei Mille. During that period he published his first important work, Alle Fonti della Vita (To the Sources of Life) (Mackenzie 1912a), and his speculative nature and his passion for (...) the philosophy of biology are already evident. In that work, Mackenzie claims that materialism is insufficient to explain biological phenomena, and he drew the foundations of a neovitalistic theory which asserted the specificity of a biological realm ruled by an intelligent and psychic energy needed to explain the teleological complexity of living organisms. (shrink)