RESUMO
The biogeographic contributions of Léon Croizat (1894-1982) and the conflictive relationships with his intellectual descendants and critics are analysed. Croizat's panbiogeography assumed that vicariance is the most important biogeographic process and that dispersal does not contribute to biogeographic patterns. Dispersalist biogeographers criticized or avoided mentioning panbiogeography, especially in the context of the "hardening" of the Modern Synthesis. Researchers at the American Museum of Natural History associated panbiogeography with Hennig's phylogenetic systematics, creating cladistic biogeography. On the other hand, a group of New Zealand biologists formalized Croizat's original concepts and soon began arguing with cladistic biogeographers over the relative merits of their approaches. In Latin America, panbiogeography and cladistic biogeography were incorporated as parts of an integrative approach. A recent development, molecular panbiogeography, is based on the use of molecular phylogenetic data. The current practice shows that some authors insist on considering panbiogeography as the only appropriate approach and vicariance as the only relevant process, whereas others accept Croizat's dictum "Earth and life evolve together" as a useful guide to understanding broad, general patterns, but recognize that dispersal also contributes substantially to biotic assembly. The framework of integrative pluralism allows to explain the complexities of the biogeographic processes involved in biotic assembly without the need of unification on a large scale. This historical analysis intersects with the existing historiography of the Modern Synthesis and may provide some insights on the dynamics of integrative pluralism, which may be especially relevant in the current development of the Extended Synthesis.
Assuntos
Distribuição Animal , Biologia/história , Dispersão Vegetal , Biologia/métodos , Biologia/normas , História do Século XX , História do Século XXIRESUMO
Este artículo se sitúa en la perspectiva de la naturalización del conocimiento científico, toda vez que es un intento por caracterizar y describir la evolución del conocimiento a partir de nociones de la biología. El objetivo principal es responder si es posible sostener la analogía que propone la epistemología evolutiva (EE): que la evolución del conocimiento científico (ECC) es similar a la evolución orgánica (EO). La pregunta surge tras las críticas que han atacado el núcleo de la analogía. La respuesta es que la analogía sí se sostiene si se tienen en cuenta las relaciones de retroalimentación, y que es posible proponer a la luz de la síntesis extendida (SE), una teoría posterior que complementa la síntesis moderna (SM). Así, este trabajo comienza con una descripción del estado de la "epistemología evolutiva", prosigue señalando por qué la síntesis moderna, que sirvió de base para su formulación, no es suficiente para fundamentar la epistemología evolutiva y finaliza proponiendo que es pertinente una modificación que puede describirse como "epistemología evolutiva extendida".
This paper is situated from naturalized epistemology perspective. It is an attempt to describe the evolution of knowledge using the theoretical structure of the evolution of species. The main objective of this work is to address whether is it possible to maintain the analogy in evolutionary epistemology and which aspects of the evolution of knowledge are similar to organic evolution? This question arises after some critics against the nucleus of its formulation. The analysis presented in this work suggests that the evolution of the knowledge can be understand through an framework analogous to that of the theory of organic evolution. For this, is necessary to take into account novel feedbacks relations between variation and selection, which are part of the Extended Synthesis theory. In such way, this paper begins with an introduction to evolutionary epistemology. After that, it shows why modern synthesis theory is not enough to maintain this kind of epistemology. It ended with the idea of an extended evolutionary epistemology.
RESUMO
It is time for an expansion and enrichment of evolutionary theory. The "back to the future" proposal contained herein is based on three postulates: 1) Neo-Darwinism is too impoverished for this task; 2) its predecessor, Darwinism, contained the necessary breadth of vision and metaphor to be the basis for an inclusive and unifying theory of biology; and 3) the necessary framework for this new stage in the evolution of evolutionary theory is largely in place. We make our case through the use of a number of metaphorical dualisms designed to help focus discussions toward a more cooperative and productive approach to the study of living systems. Along the way, we suggest a number of self-induced paradoxes in neo-Darwinian accounts of evolution that are resolved by our perspective.
RESUMO
It is time for an expansion and enrichment of evolutionary theory. The "back to the future" proposal contained herein is based on three postulates: 1) Neo-Darwinism is too impoverished for this task; 2) its predecessor, Darwinism, contained the necessary breadth of vision and metaphor to be the basis for an inclusive and unifying theory of biology; and 3) the necessary framework for this new stage in the evolution of evolutionary theory is largely in place. We make our case through the use of a number of metaphorical dualisms designed to help focus discussions toward a more cooperative and productive approach to the study of living systems. Along the way, we suggest a number of self-induced paradoxes in neo-Darwinian accounts of evolution that are resolved by our perspective.
RESUMO
It is time for an expansion and enrichment of evolutionary theory. The "back to the future" proposal contained herein is based on three postulates: 1) Neo-Darwinism is too impoverished for this task; 2) its predecessor, Darwinism, contained the necessary breadth of vision and metaphor to be the basis for an inclusive and unifying theory of biology; and 3) the necessary framework for this new stage in the evolution of evolutionary theory is largely in place. We make our case through the use of a number of metaphorical dualisms designed to help focus discussions toward a more cooperative and productive approach to the study of living systems. Along the way, we suggest a number of self-induced paradoxes in neo-Darwinian accounts of evolution that are resolved by our perspective.