Abstract
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 145-154 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences |
| Volume | 42 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Jun 2011 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Complexity
- Condensed matter physics
- Models
- Molecular biology
- Physics-biology interface
- Simulations
- Systems biology
Cite this
}
Approximations, idealizations and 'experiments' at the physics-biology interface. / ROWBOTTOM, Darrell Patrick.
In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Vol. 42, No. 2, 01.06.2011, p. 145-154.Research output: Journal Publications › Journal Article (refereed) › Research › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Approximations, idealizations and 'experiments' at the physics-biology interface
AU - ROWBOTTOM, Darrell Patrick
PY - 2011/6/1
Y1 - 2011/6/1
N2 - This paper, which is based on recent empirical research at the University of Leeds, the University of Edinburgh, and the University of Bristol, presents two difficulties which arise when condensed matter physicists interact with molecular biologists: (1) the former use models which appear to be too coarse-grained, approximate and/or idealized to serve a useful scientific purpose to the latter; and (2) the latter have a rather narrower view of what counts as an experiment, particularly when it comes to computer simulations, than the former. It argues that these findings are related; that computer simulations are considered to be undeserving of experimental status, by molecular biologists, precisely because of the idealizations and approximations that they involve. The complexity of biological systems is a key factor. The paper concludes by critically examining whether the new research programme of ‘systems biology’ offers a genuine alternative to the modelling strategies used by physicists. It argues that it does not.
AB - This paper, which is based on recent empirical research at the University of Leeds, the University of Edinburgh, and the University of Bristol, presents two difficulties which arise when condensed matter physicists interact with molecular biologists: (1) the former use models which appear to be too coarse-grained, approximate and/or idealized to serve a useful scientific purpose to the latter; and (2) the latter have a rather narrower view of what counts as an experiment, particularly when it comes to computer simulations, than the former. It argues that these findings are related; that computer simulations are considered to be undeserving of experimental status, by molecular biologists, precisely because of the idealizations and approximations that they involve. The complexity of biological systems is a key factor. The paper concludes by critically examining whether the new research programme of ‘systems biology’ offers a genuine alternative to the modelling strategies used by physicists. It argues that it does not.
KW - Complexity
KW - Condensed matter physics
KW - Models
KW - Molecular biology
KW - Physics-biology interface
KW - Simulations
KW - Systems biology
UR - http://commons.ln.edu.hk/sw_master/2666
U2 - 10.1016/j.shpsc.2010.11.021
DO - 10.1016/j.shpsc.2010.11.021
M3 - Journal Article (refereed)
VL - 42
SP - 145
EP - 154
JO - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C :Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences
JF - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C :Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences
SN - 1369-8486
IS - 2
ER -