作者：Francisco Vergara-Silva Æ Rasmus GrønfeldtWinther
原文（侵删）：
This special issue ofActa Biotheoreticagrows out of a small conference on ‘‘Systematics, Darwinism, and the Philosophyof Science’’ held at the Universidad Nacional Auto´noma de Me´xico (UNAM) inthe Fall of 2006. We asked the conference attendees and other experts to submitpapers exploring issues emerging around contemporary biological systematics andDarwinism. Following common usage, we construe systematics as the researchfield engaged in classifying and naming organisms; we understand Darwinism(roughly: evolutionary biology), as the set of disciplines that providehistorical, selective, and perhaps other types of explanations for the originand nature of parts and characters (from genetic molecular tobehavioral-cognitive) of hierarchically arranged taxa. We are extremelygrateful to the 12 authors, who exhibit a broad range of deep expertise andcreativity, in both biological and philosophical matters. In order to publishthis large number of contributions, we divide them into two groups: ‘‘From aPhilosophical Point of View’’ and ‘‘From a Biological Point of View.’’ Eachgrouping includes a general introduction. The articles display a rich diversityof positions on systematics and Darwinism. Moreover, they vary tremendously inhow they imagine the conceptual, methodological, and historical interactionbetween systematics and Darwinism. Specific questions addressed here include:What is the appropriate relation between classification (grouping) and taxonomy(naming)? Is phylogenetic inference fundamentally (and without remainder)abductive, deductive, or inductive? How can an epistemological, rather than ametaphysical, emphasis on natural kinds shed light on actual morphological structureand evolutionary process? Need we endorse a priori any particular model ofevolutionary process in order to classify and name biological units (e.g.,varieties, species, and higher-level taxa)? Is the Tree of Life a real entity,an instrumental model, or a metaphor? What exactly is Darwinism, and is itco-extensive with evolutionary biology? What kind of thing is a biologicalspecies? How can we complement selective, historical and other types (e.g.,structuralist) of evolutionary explanations? We believe that in the context ofthe ‘‘Darwin Year’’ celebrations taking place worldwide in 2009, and at a timewhen crucial fields such as biodiversity discovery and conservation and systemsbiology turn increasingly data-driven, it would be fruitful to take a step backand consider the general issues addressed in the articles here compiled. Thephilosophy of science can be productively used to investigate systematics,Darwinism, and their interface. The hope is to further the development ofmethodologically, conceptually and even ethically sophisticated models,theories, and practices useful for the sciences that aim to catalog,comprehend, and construct life. From its inception, every academic project isincomplete. We feel that it would be dishonest not to mention important fieldsof inquiry that we, unfortunately, had to bracket. Although the contributionsare rich in philosophical subtlety and biological insight, there are noexplicitly historical or sociological investigations of the theories and practicesof systematics and Darwinism. Such ‘‘contextual’’ work can itself productivelyfeedback on philosophical and biological ‘‘content’’ investigations, as some ofthe contributors to this special issue also note. Permit us to point to twotropes that could be investigated in order to remedy this lacuna: the colonialsetting of natural history and ‘‘The Essentialism Story.’’ As a Westerncultural product, systematics emerges out of natural history. A detailedknowledge of the taxonomic diversity of many groups of organisms was essentialto the work of Linnaeus, Buffon, and Darwin, among others. Interestingly, theirknowledge production projects—i.e., their classifications, and their theoriesand methods of classification—were intricately tied to colonial discovery andconquest. After all, one of the many consequences of colonialism was thecollection of dead and living species from all parts of the globe, includingthe Americas, South Pacific, Indian Subcontinent, and sub-Saharan Africa; thesesamples were deposited in safe havens in the colonial capitals, especiallyLondon and Paris. Such spoils served the great students of natural historywell. History never ends. In 2009, globalization continues and the centers ofpower increase in number and geographic-cultural diversity. In the context ofthis increasing interconnectivity, scientific efforts explicitly related tosystematics and Darwinism, such as species barcoding, biodiversity cataloging,and human genome diversity data-mining, serve as testimony for the continuedcolonial imperative of lording over all kinds of life in the Periphery. Arethese efforts of ‘‘postcolonial biology’’ indeed a manifestation of the sameimperative? If so, how might engaged biologists and philosophers help build afairer and kinder system of power relations? Ernst Mayr, Michael Ghiselin, andDavid Hull entrenched a standard historiography of Darwin’s role insystematics: Darwin was a variational, population thinker who liberated us fromessentialist, typological thinking. According to these distinguished authors,everyone before Darwin, especially Linnaeus, held that each biological specieswas characterized by intrinsic, definitional Aristotelian essences. Suchspecies-level essences were taken to explain the immutability of species andthe static order of the Natural System. This well-knownhistoriography—sometimes called ‘‘The Essentialism Story’’—has recently beencritically analyzed by Ronald Amundson, Gordon McOuat, and Mary Winsor. Thehistorically and sociologically sophisticated work of these scholars beliesover-simplified assumptions about an ubiquitous pre-Darwin(ian) metaphysicalessentialism. Their analyses show the rich context and varied assumptions,practices, and concepts surrounding such central notions as species, naturalkinds, types, and change. The Essentialism Story turned out to be a fiction.Again, the complex nature of actual historical and social processes cannot besuppressed once we open what some might consider the multilingual Pandora’s Boxof the historical archives and lengthy and esoteric alreadypublished works.Further historical and sociological investigations—especially by youngerundergraduate, masters, and doctoral students—would undoubtedly be welcomed bythose of us interested in systematics and Darwinism. We are extremely gratefulto a number of people and institutions for their support. The Instituto deInvestigationes Filoso´ficas (IIF-UNAM) and the Graduate Program in Philosophyof Science, chaired by, respectively, Guillermo Hurtado and Atocha Alisedakindly provided financial assistance for the initial conference. Additionalfinancial resources were made available by Lilia Espinosa and Juan Nu´n˜ezFarfa´n at the Programa de Posgrado en Ciencias Biolo´gicas, UNAM. Lucı´aAnaya, Bryan de la Torre, Margarita Mun˜iz, and Noemı´ Reyes of the IIF-UNAMtirelessly offered administrative and technical support. Sergio Martı´nez andCarlos Lo´pez Beltra´n made helpful suggestions of an academic nature. ThomasReydon patiently provided editorial assistance and suggestions every step ofthe way. Finally, we reiterate our sincere gratitude to the contributors, notonly for their ideas, but also for their generous cooperation and unfailing,friendly support. ¡Muchas gracias a todos ustedes!
网友评论