My dissertation combines philosophy of science and political philosophy. Drawing directly on the work of Alasdair MacIntyre and inspired by John Dewey, I develop two rival conceptions of scientific practice. I show that these rivals are closely linked to the two basic sides in the science and values debate -- the debate over the extent to which ethical and political values may legitimately influence scientific inquiry. Finally, I start to develop an account of justice that is sensitive to these legitimate (...) and illegitimate influences. (shrink)

During the 1970s, a "revolution" in American paleobiology took place. It came about in part because a group of mostly young, ambitious paleontologists adapted many of the quantitative methodologies and techniques developed in fields including biology and ecology over the previous several decades to their own discipline. Stephen Jay Gould, who was then just beginning his career, joined others in articulating a singular vision for transforming paleontology from an isolated and often ignored science to a "nomothetic discipline" that could sit (...) at evolution's "high table." Over the course of a single decade, between 1970 and 1980, this transformation had in large part been accomplished. Among those most centrally involved in this process were Gould, Thomas Schopf, David Raup, and Gould's graduate student Jack Sepkoski, all of whom made major contributions in theoretical and quantitative analysis of the fossil record and evolutionary history. Recognizing that an ideological agenda was not enough, Gould and others developed and promoted new outlets, technologies, and pedagogical strategies to nurture their new discipline. This paper describes this process of transformation, and presents Sepkoski's education and participation as exemplary of the "new model paleontologist", which Gould hoped to produce. (shrink)

In this paper, I discuss the problem of scientific laws in general and laws of biology in particular. After reviewing the debate around the existence of laws in biology, I examine the subject in the light of the structuralist notion of a fundamental law and argue for the law of matching as the fundamental law of genetics.

De modo semelhante aos rompantes etnocêntricos de uma cultura humana frente a outras, as relações entre humanos e primatas não humanos incluem um estranhamento pontuado por atração e repulsa, identificação e diferença. Ciência, arte e mitologia são a expressão viva e atualizada disso. Desde 1960, a primatologia destaca-se nesse cenário por contribuir significativamente na revisão das definições sobre o comportamento dos primatas e, consequentemente, na redefinição do humano ao apresentar a polêmica proposição de existência de "culturas" entre animais não humanos. (...) Assim, a aproximação entre humanos e primatas não humanos parece inexorável e irreversível. Isso implica, por exemplo, em cogitar se esse processo engendra, ou não, a constituição de novas alteridades a partir de um novo outro (não humano), carregado de significados. Isso incluiria, por exemplo, a reformulação de representações e de categorias de classificação, bem como o aprofundamento do debate sobre os direitos dos animais não humanos. Ao dirigir tal tipo de desafio a situações de pesquisa antropológica deve-se ter aguda consciência de que o registro etnográfico das relações entre humanos e os outros primatas será uma construção empírica, perceptual e teórica. Dado o tipo particular de relação estabelecida entre humanos e outros primatas, pautada em um universo fronteiriço de incômodas semelhanças e diferenças, constituem-se aí coletivos híbridos em que o alcance e a profundidade das interações possíveis ainda são desconhecidos. The relations between humans and non-human primates resemble the ethnocentric reaction of one human culture in relation to others, and include an estrangement marked by attraction and rejection, identification and differentiation. Art, science and myths are the vivid and updated expression of these phenomena. Since the 1960's primatology stands out in that scenario for contributing significantly to the revision of the definitions about the behavior of primates and, consequently, for the redefinition of human beings, and for making the controversial proposal of the existence of non-human animal "cultures". Then, the close connection between humans and non-human primates seems relentless and irreversible - and raises the question on whether or not these processes engender a new kind of otherness deriving from a non-human other that is full of meaning. This would include, for example, the reformulation of the representations and categories of classification, as well as deepening the debate about the rights of non-human animals. When the challenge is taken up in situations of anthropological research that address the relationships between human beings and the other primates, the ethnographic register that describes the relations between human beings and other primates will be an equally sharp empirical, perceptual and theoretical construction. Given the peculiar type of relationship established between human beings and other primates, implemented in a frontier universe of uncomfortable similarities and differences, they constituted a hybrid collective where interactions are possible but we do not know exactly how complex or how depth they are. (shrink)

En sus Principios de biología de 1864, Spencer esboza una complementación entre el cuvierianismo transformacional mitigado que daba sentido a la idea de equilibración directa ahí presentada, y la teoría de la selección natural que Darwin ya había formulado en 1859. Era a este último mecanismo que Spencer denominaba "equilibración indirecta". Según Spencer, esta segunda forma de equilibración permitía explicar fenómenos evolutivos que la primera, la equilibración directa, no podía causar; aunque para él también era evidente que el accionar de (...) esa segunda equilibración debía siempre subordinarse al control de la primera. In his Principles of Biology, published in 1864, Spencer outlines a complementarity between the mitigated transformational cuvierianism that was in the basis of his idea of direct equilibration, and the theory of the natural selection that Darwin had already formulated in 1859. Spencer called the mechanism of natural selection indirect equilibration. According to him, this second form of equilibration enabled the explanation of some evolutionary phenomena that could not be caused by direct equilibration. However, for Spencer, it was clear that the operation of this second equilibration had to be always subordinated to the control of the first one. (shrink)