Advances in biology, at least over the past two centuries, have mostly relied on theories that were subsequently revised, expanded or eventually refuted using experimental and other means. The field of theoretical biology used to primarily provide a basis, similar to theoretical physics in the physical sciences, to rationally examine the frameworks within which biological experiments were carried out and to shed light on overlooked gaps in understanding. Today, however, theoretical biology has generally become synonymous with computational and mathematical biology. (...) This could in part be explained by a relatively recent tendency in which a "data first", rather than a "theory first", approach is preferred. Moreover, generating hypotheses has at times become procedural rather than theoretical, therefore perhaps inadvertently leading some hypotheses to become perfunctory in nature. This situation leaves our understanding enmeshed in data, which should be disentangled from much noise. Given the many unresolved questions in biology and medicine, big and small, ranging from the problem of protein folding to unifying causative frameworks of complex non-Mendelian human diseases, it seems apt to revive the role of pure theory in the biological sciences. This paper, using the current biomedical literature and historical precedents, makes the case for a "philosophical biology" (philbiology), distinct from but quite complementary to philosophy of biology (philobiology), which would entail biological investigation through philosophical approaches. Philbiology would thus be a reincarnation of theoretical biology, adopting the true sense of the word "theory" and making use of a rich tradition of serious philosophical approaches in the natural sciences. A philbiological investigation, after clearly defining a given biological problem, would aim to propose a set of empirical questions, along with a class of possible solutions, about that problem. Importantly, whether or not the questions can be tested using current experimental paradigms would be secondary to whether the questions are inherently empirical or not. These issues will be illustrated using a range of specific examples. The final goal of a philbiological investigation would be to develop a theoretical framework that can lead observational and/or interventional experimental studies of the defined problem, a framework that is structured, generative and expandable, and, crucially, one that simplifies some aspect(s) of the said problem. (shrink)

From Antiquity through the early modern period, the apparent motion of the Sun in longitude was simulated by the eccentric model set forth in Ptolemy’s Almagest III, with the fundamental parameters including the two orbital elements, the eccentricity e and the longitude of the apogee λ A, the mean motion ω, and the radix of the mean longitude $$ \bar{\lambda }_{0} $$ λ¯0. In this article we investigate the accuracy of 11 solar theories established across the Middle East from 800 (...) to 1600 as well as Ptolemy’s and Tycho Brahe’s, with respect to the precision of the parameter values and of the solar longitudes λ that they produce. The theoretical deviation due to the mismatch between the eccentric model with uniform motion and the elliptical model with Keplerian motion is taken into account in order to determine the precision of e and λ A in the theories whose observational basis is available. The smallest errors in the eccentricity are found in these theories: the Mumtaḥan : − 0.1 × 10−4, Bīrūnī : + 0.4 × 10−4, Ulugh Beg : − 0.9 × 10−4, and Taqī al-Dīn : − 1.1 × 10−4. Except for al-Khāzinī, the errors in the medieval determinations of the solar eccentricity do not exceed 7.7 × 10−4 in absolute value, with a mean error μ = + 2.57 × 10−4 and standard deviation σ = 3.02 × 10−4. Their precision is remarkable not only in comparison with the errors of Copernicus and Tycho, but also with the seventeenth-century measurements by Cassini–Flamsteed and Riccioli. The absolute error in λ A varies from 0.1° to 1.9° with the mean absolute error MAE = 0.87°, μ = −0.71° and σ = 0.65°. The errors in λ for the 13,000-day ephemerides show MAE < 6′ and the periodic variations mostly remaining within ± 10′, closely correlated with the accuracy of e and λ A. (shrink)

ArgumentIn theAlmagest, Ptolemy finds that the apogee of Mercury moves progressively at a speed equal to his value for the rate of precession, namely one degree per century, in the tropical reference system of the ecliptic coordinates. He generalizes this to the other planets, so that the motions of the apogees of all five planets are assumed to be equal, while the solar apsidal line is taken to be fixed. In medieval Islamic astronomy, one change in this general proposition took (...) place because of the discovery of the motion of the solar apogee in the ninth century, which gave rise to lengthy discussions on the speed of its motion. Initially Bīrūnī and later Ibn al-Zarqālluh assigned a proper motion to it, although at different rates. Nevertheless, appealing to the Ptolemaic generalization and interpreting it as a methodological axiom, the dominant idea became to extend it in order to include the motion of the solar apogee as well. Another change occurred after correctly making a distinction between the motion of the apogees and the rate of precession. Some Western Islamic astronomers generalized Ibn al-Zarqālluh's proper motion of the solar apogee to the apogees of the planets. Analogously, Ibn al-Shāṭir maintained that the motion of the apogees is faster than precession. Nevertheless, the Ptolemaic generalization in the case of the equality of the motions of the apogees remained untouchable, despite the notable development of planetary astronomy, in both theoretical and observational aspects, in the late Islamic period. (shrink)