Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T11:38:42.734Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Tale of Two Individuality Accounts and Integrative Pluralism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Abstract

This article focuses on recent discussions about holobionts and evolutionary individuality to evaluate the merits of integrative pluralism. I argue that integrative pluralism is the wrong approach to take when it comes to holobiont research because integrative pluralism is not liberal enough to accommodate both single-species and multispecies individuals. I conclude by suggesting two points. First, a pluralistic view helps us better understand holobiont research. Second, the case of holobionts helps us develop a better account of scientific pluralism.

Type
Biological Sciences
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Sinan Şencan was a PhD student in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Calgary. Tragically, Sinan passed away while attending the PSA meeting in Seattle in November 2018. He never got to present his paper at PSA. Sinan entered the philosophy PhD program at the University of Calgary in 2014. Previously, he had completed a BA in philosophy from the Middle East Technical University and an MA in philosophy at Mugla Sitki Koçman University. At the time of his death, Sinan’s PhD dissertation, titled “Scientific Pluralism from a Biological Perspective,” was nearly completed. Sinan’s dissertation examines various forms of scientific pluralism using biological research on holobionts as a case study. Sinan was dedicated to his research in the philosophy of science. He is remembered for his warmth, humor, and generosity.

References

Booth, Austin. 2014. “Populations and Individuals in Heterokaryotic Fungi: A Multilevel Perspective.” Philosophy of Science 81 (4): 612–32..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosch, Thomas C. G., and Miller, David J.. 2016. The Holobiont Imperative. Vienna: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brigandt, Ingo. 2010. “Beyond Reduction and Pluralism: Toward an Epistemology of Explanatory Integration in Biology.” Erkenntnis 73 (3): 295311..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, Gaelen R., McLaughlin, Heather J., Simon, Jean-Christophe, and Moran, Nancy A.. 2010. “Dynamics of a Recurrent Buchnera Mutation That Affects Thermal Tolerance of Pea Aphid Hosts.” Genetics 186 (1): 367–72..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chong, Rebecca A., and Moran, Nancy A.. 2016. “Intraspecific Genetic Variation in Hosts Affects Regulation of Obligate Heritable Symbionts.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (46): 13114–19..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Császár, Nikolaus B. M., Ralph, Peter J., Frankham, Richard, Berkelmans, Ray, and van Oppen, Madeleine J. H.. 2010. “Estimating the Potential for Adaptation of Corals to Climate Warming.” PLoS ONE 5 (3): e9751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Douglas, Angela E., and Werren, John H.. 2016. “Holes in the Hologenome: Why Host-Microbe Symbioses Are Not Holobionts.” MBio 7 (2): e0209915..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, Helen E, Wilson, Alex C. C., Ferguson, Nicole R., and Moran, Nancy A.. 2007. “Aphid Thermal Tolerance Is Governed by a Point Mutation in Bacterial Symbionts.” PLoS Biology 5 (5): e96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilbert, Scott F., Sapp, Jan, and Tauber, Alfred I.. 2012. “A Symbiotic View of Life: We Have Never Been Individuals.” Quarterly Review of Biology 87 (4): 325–41..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 2013. “Darwinian Individuals.” In From Groups to Individuals: Evolution and Emerging Individuality, ed. Bouchard, Frédéric and Huneman, Philippe, 1736. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kellert, Stephen H., Longino, Helen E., and Waters, C. Kenneth, eds. 2006. Scientific Pluralism. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 19. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Elisabeth A. 2018. “Holobionts as Units of Selection: Holobionts as Interactors, Reproducers, and Manifestors of Adaptation.” In Landscapes of Collectivity in the Life Sciences, ed. Gissis, Snait B., Lamm, Ehud, and Shavit, Ayelet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Love, Alan C., and Brigandt, Ingo. 2017. “Philosophical Dimensions of Individuality.” In Biological Individuality: Integrating Scientific, Philosophical, and Historical Perspectives, ed. Lidgard, Scott and Nyhart, Lynn K., 318–48. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Margulis, Lynn, and Sagan, Dorion. 2008. Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
McFall-Ngai, Margaret J. 2014. “The Importance of Microbes in Animal Development: Lessons from the Squid-Vibrio Symbiosis.” Annual Review of Microbiology 68 (1): 177–94..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, Sandra D. 2003. Biological Complexity and Integrative Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Sandra D.. 2009. Unsimple Truths: Science, Complexity, and Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Malley, Maureen A. 2013. “When Integration Fails: Prokaryote Phylogeny and the Tree of Life.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science C 44 (4): 551–62..Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Eugene, and Zilber-Rosenberg, Ilana. 2014. The Hologenome Concept: Human, Animal and Plant Microbiota. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Roughgarden, Joan, Gilbert, Scott F., Rosenberg, Eugene, Zilber-Rosenberg, Ilana, and Lloyd, Elisabeth A.. 2018. “Holobionts as Units of Selection and a Model of Their Population Dynamics and Evolution.” Biological Theory 13 (1): 4465..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skaljac, Marisa. 2016. “Bacterial Symbionts of Aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae).” In Biology and Ecology of Aphids, ed. Vilcinskas, Andreas, 100125. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Stegenga, Jacob. 2016. “Population Pluralism and Natural Selection.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 67 (1): 129..CrossRefGoogle Scholar