Maël Lemoine

Philosophers of biology usually distinguish historical and systemic accounts of functions. In many areas of experimental biology the "systemic" account is often the most relevant. Yet there are problems this account does admittedly not face up to very well. My contention is that, though two minor problems are irredeemably unsolvable for the systemic account of function, the major ones can be solved by assuming that 'function' denotes (directly) a causal role in a model and (indirectly) the corresponding process in nature. I try to show this through the analysis of the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis of stress.

La médecine ne se contente pas de diagnostiquer et de traiter des maladies : elle vise aussi à les expliquer. En cela, elle prend pied de plein droit dans le domaine de la science. En quoi consistent les explications médicales, et qu'est-ce qui les singularise au sein des explications en biologie? La première caractéristique des explications médicales est leur pluralité. La médecine semble en effet réunir sous un même label des explications très diverses, voire hétérogènes, unies seulement par l'objet d'application et la visée thérapeutique. Le propre de l'explication scientifique médicale, c'est sa pluridisciplinarité.Un canevas théorique est nécessaire pour mettre en évidence ce qui, dans une explication scientifique, peut permettre une telle diversité des explications. Celui-ci est fourni par la notion de " valeur explicative " : une croyance, injustifiable, mais bien fondée, en l'exhaustivité des conditions initiales dont une explication doit tenir compte. Bien qu'elle tende par elle-même à tout expliquer sans reste, et qu'elle exclut du domaine disciplinaire qu'elle définit ainsi tout autre type d'explication, une valeur explicative n'exclut jamais en droit la possibilité d'explications scientifiques d'autres types. Un nombre indéfini de valeurs explicatives, exclusives les unes des autres, fondatrices de domaines scientifiques distincts, est donc possible. La médecine présente ainsi la particularité de rassembler plusieurs valeurs explicatives différentes et qui plus est, de les contraindre à la convergence ou à la collaboration. Quelques-unes des principales valeurs explicatives de la médecine sont présentées, de même que les enjeux de leur confrontation. Clinique, épidémiologique, mécanique, génétique, cytologique, infectiologique, pharmacologique, l'explication médicale se fonde à chaque fois sur une manière différente de considérer le phénomène pathologique.

English summary: Based on the famous essay by Georges Canguilhem on what is normal and pathological (originally published in 1943), extensive philosophical literature (mainly Anglo-Saxon) has attempted to define these concepts and analyze their status. The main discussion focuses on the following question: can you describe health and illness as natural phenomena or are they states that are determined by values? French text. French description: Depuis le celebre essai de Georges Canguilhem sur le normal et le pathologique publie initialement en 1943 et dont l'un des objectifs etait la clarification des concepts de sante et de maladie, une litterature philosophique abondante, principalement anglo-saxonne, s'est attachee a definir ces concepts et a analyser leur statut. Le principal debat de ce domaine emergent de la philosophie de la medecine porte sur la question: peut-on decrire la sante et la maladie comme des phenomenes naturels ou s'agit-il d'etats qui sont determines par des valeurs? Tous les textes presentes dans ce volume ont participe de cette controverse. Ceux de la premiere section accordent une part importante a la composante biologique. Ceux de la seconde donnent le primat a la notion d'action. Ceux de la derniere section mettent en question l'utilite ou la possibilite meme de definir les deux concepts.

If the healthy and the pathological are not merely judgments qualifiers, but real phenomena, it must be possible to define both of them positively, which, in this context, means as factual contraries. On the other hand, only a privative definition, either of the pathological as ‘non-healthy’, or of the healthy as ‘non-pathological’, can rationally circumscribe all possible states of an organism. This fluctuation between two meanings of the ‘healthy’–‘pathological’ opposition, factual vs. rational, characterizes the ordinary usage of these concepts and puts all philosophical definitions in a hopeless situation. Although a scientific definition may conceal this equivocation by adequately setting out the terms of the problem of discriminating between the ‘healthy’ and the ‘pathological’, it could explain some of the difficulties met in determining ‘gold standards’, in the choice of separators, and in the assessment of the diagnostic qualities of tests.

Because biologization of psychiatric constructs does not involve derivation of laws, or reduce the number of entities involved, the traditional term of ‘reduction’ should be replaced. This paper describes biologization in terms of redefinition, which involves changing the definition of terms sharing the same extension. Redefinition obtains through triangulation and calibration, that is, respectively, detection of an object from two different spots, and tweaking parameters of detection in order to optimize the picture. The unity of the different views of the same object does not occur through derivation from one of them, as reduction suggests, nor does it obtain through mechanistic unity or the goal of explaining one mechanism, as the phrase ‘mosaic unity’ suggests. Instead, it depends on finding a specific angle of observation, from which linguistic consistency matches sound localization in the brain, so that all observations make sense together, just as an anamorphic picture makes clear sense only when observed from the right spot.

M. Henry voit à tort chez Maine de Biran la distinction entre trois figures du corps propre: corps objectif (extérieur et mondain), corps organique (terme résistant de l'effort), et corps subjectif (confondu avec l'ego). Maine de Biran distingue bien trois corps, mais le troisième, loin d'être confondu avec l'ego, est un corps de pure passivité duquel l'ego est absent. Cet état d'affectivité pure étudié par Biran répond à la critique par M. Henry de sa théorie de la passivité, et corrige la théorie de l'auto-affection. M. Henry misunderstands Maine de Biran's distinction between three dimensions of the body: while the former makes a difference between the objective body (in the external world), the organic body (resistant term of the effort), and the subjective body (identified with the ego), the latter considers the third to be a body of mere passivity from which the ego is absent. The description Biran makes of this state of pure sensitivity answers M. Henry's critique of his theory of passivity, and modifies the theory of « auto-affection »

Durée et nature sont chez Bergson deux termes liés en ce que l'intuition majeure du philosophe, qui est l'expérience de se replacer dans la durée, induit une nouvelle conception, dynamique et évolutive de la nature. Loin d'introduire dans un subjectivisme métaphysique, Bergson avec la durée nous ouvre une nouvelle philosophie de la nature. Le but de cet ouvrage est de contribuer à replacer Bergson dans le débat contemporain en passant par la voie royale de sa philosophie, l'intuition de la durée.

Science starts by using terms such as ‘temperature’ or ‘fish’ or ‘gene’ to preliminarily delimitate the extension of a phenomenon, and concludes by giving most of them a technical meaning based on an explanatory model. This transforma- tion of the meaning of the term is an essential part of its naturalization. Debating on the definition of ‘disease’, what most philosophers of medicine have examined is the pre-naturalized meaning of the term: for that reason they have focused on the task of delimiting disease and non-disease (health), mainly used conceptual analysis as a method of choice, and considered the nosological level of ‘disease judgments’ rather than the pathophysiological or psychopathological level of disease mechanisms, thus making them impervious to most scientific discoveries. By focusing instead on the naturalized concept of disease and following some suggestions by philosophers of biology and scientists in cutting-edge fields of biomedical research, they could gar- ner results from a comparison of the mechanisms of diseases. This would ultimately result in a general theory of disease linked with our most general theories on living beings, among them, systems biology and network medicine. Before undertaking such a task, preliminary questions arise: is it likely that there are biological features common to different types of disease? Is it a philosopher’s job to determine what they consist in? What use would such a general theoretical definition of disease be?

Contrairement aux idées reçues, Hegel n’est pas un précurseur de la pensée totalitaire, auquel on pourrait opposer un Bergson républicain et démocrate. Tous deux parlent de la communauté politique comme d’un organisme, doctrine affectionnée du totalitarisme. Ni chez l’un, ni chez l’autre, on ne peut atténuer la portée de l’affirmation en invoquant un usage métaphorique : il faut entendre, chez l’un comme chez l’autre, l’organisme au sens propre mais large. L’organicité du politique, loin de la menacer, est la seule forme compatible avec la liberté des individus, grâce à la distinction que l’on peut faire entre organisation toute faite et organisation se faisant : si la première traite les individus en rouages d’un mécanisme, la seconde est l’expression immédiate de l’épanouissement de leurs libertés.Popper wrote that Hegel, as a thinker, is a forerunner of totalitarianism ; on the other hand, one cannot but regard Bergson as a true democrat. Both however considered the politic body as an organism, a doctrine supporters of the totalitarian state favoured. The assertion must not be underrated : neither thinker intended to use a metaphorical expression, hence a broad meaning of « organism ». As a matter of fact the organicity of a politic body, far from threatening individual freedom, is the only form that proves compatible with individuality. The important thing is to distinguish all-made « organized organisation » from selfmaking « organizing organisation » : the former treats individuals as mechanical entities, while the latter is the result of the self-development of their freedom

Conceptual analysis of health and disease is portrayed as consisting in the confrontation of a set of criteria—a “definition”—with a set of cases, called instances of either “health” or “ disease.” Apart from logical counter-arguments, there is no other way to refute an opponent’s definition than by providing counter-cases. As resorting to intensional stipulation is not forbidden, several contenders can therefore be deemed to have succeeded. This implies that conceptual analysis alone is not likely to decide between naturalism and normativism. An alternative to this approach would be to examine whether the concept of disease can be naturalized

Philosophers of science have recently focused on the scientific activity of modeling phenomena, and explicated several of its properties, as well as the activities embedded into it. A first approach to modeling has been elaborated in terms of representing a target system: yet other epistemic functions, such as producing data or detecting phenomena, are at least as relevant. Additional useful distinctions have emerged, such as the one between phenomenological and mechanistic models. In biological sciences, besides mathematical models, models now come in three forms: in vivo, in vitro and in silico. Each has been investigated separately, and many specific problems they raised have been laid out. Another relevant distinction is disciplinary: do models differ in significant ways according to the discipline involved—medicine or biology, evolutionary biology or earth science? Focusing on either this threefold distinction or the disciplinary boundaries reveals that they might not be sufficient from a philosophical perspective. On the contrary, focusing on the interaction between these various kinds of models, some interesting forms of explanation come to the fore, as is exemplified by the papers included in this issue. On the other hand, a focus on the use of models, rather than on their content, shows that the distinction between biological and medical models is theoretically sound.