Christophe Malaterre

Much attention in philosophy of science has been devoted to explicating highly prized concepts such as explanation, theory, or model, among many others, resulting in a plurality of nuanced philosophical accounts (for example, the deductive-nomological account, the causal account, the unification account, and the mechanistic account of explanation). The rationale for this enterprise is to be found in the central epistemic roles that such concepts are taken to play in science. But do these concepts actually play such significant roles? In this article, we investigate the actual usage of epistemic concepts in the practice of science by analysing terminological occurrence patterns in scientific publications. Narrowing down the study to six major epistemic concepts (theory, model, mechanism, explanation, understanding, and prediction), we use text-mining methods to quantify actual terminological usage and relationships in a corpus of 73,771 full-text scientific articles of the biological and medical sciences (from the BioMed Central database). The resulting terminological cartographies partly validate select philosophical intuitions, but also suggest notable differences between philosophical reconstructions and the actual roles that epistemic concepts appear to be playing in the scientific discourse. We also investigate the incidence of disciplinary context.

Many researchers consider cancer to have molecular causes, namely mutated genes that result in abnormal cell proliferation (e.g. Weinberg 1998); yet for others, the causes of cancer are to be found not at the molecular level but at the tissue level and carcinogenesis would consist in a disrupted tissue organization with downward causation effects on cells and cellular components (e.g. Sonnenschein & Soto 2008). In this contribution, I ponder how to make sense of such downward causation claims. Adopting a manipulationist account of causation (Woodward 2003), I propose a formal definition of downward causation, and discuss further requirements (in light of Baumgartner 2009). I then show that such an account cannot be mobilized in support of non-reductive physicalism (contrary to Raatikainen 2010). However, I also argue that such downward causation claims might point at particularly interesting dynamic properties of causal relationships that might prove salient in characterizing causal relationships (following Woodward 2010).

La vie est-elle un phénomène émergent ? Traduit-elle l'apparition de propriétés nouvelles au niveau d'un tout, qui seraient irréductibles aux propriétés et à l'organisation des composants de ce tout, ou encore imprédictibles à partir de ces mêmes éléments ? Développées à la charnière des XIXe et XXe siècles comme alternative aux deux approches antinomiques du vivant que sont le vitalisme et le mécanisme, la notion philosophique d'émergence connait aujourd'hui de nouveaux développements : avec la prise de conscience de la complexité du vivant, un nouveau discours émergentiste refait surface en biologie et dans le champ scientifique des origines de la vie. Que signifie la notion d'émergence lorsqu'elle s'applique à l'apparition de la vie sur Terre ? Quelles sont sa pertinence et sa portée ? Dans ce livre, Christophe Malaterre propose une clarification conceptuelle de la notion philosophique d'émergence ; il en défend une conception epistémique et contextuelle, adossée à la notion d'explication. En s'inspirant des travaux les plus contemporains sur les origines de la vie, il montre que, selon le contexte epistémique dans lequel le phénomène est évalué, la qualification de l'apparition de la vie comme émergente est, ou non, justifié. Il défend alors la thèse selon laquelle la caractérisation émergentiste de l'apparition de la vie n'est qu'une conséquence temporaire des limites de nos connaissances scientifiques.