Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T21:09:53.098Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - The philosophy of astrobiology: The Copernican and Darwinian philosophical presuppositions

from Part I - Motivations and approaches: How do we frame the problems of discovery and impact?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2015

Iris Fry
Affiliation:
Technion–Israel Institute of Technology
Steven J. Dick
Affiliation:
Library of Congress, Washington DC
Get access

Summary

Contrary to common wisdom, science is not exclusively defined by its methods and theories, nor is it constituted only by substantiated empirical hypotheses. Rather, philosophical presuppositions are also a crucial part of the scientific endeavor. Astrobiology, like any scientific field that seeks to learn and understand nature, rests on such philosophical presuppositions. We do not experience nature as a clean slate, as the tabula rasa upheld by the seventeenth–eighteenth-century Empiricists. Philosophical presuppositions guiding science are general, universal claims about nature that transcend limited experience. For example, the notion that natural laws necessarily hold not only on our planet or in our galaxy but in the universe at large cannot be proved or disproved empirically. Nevertheless, it is on the basis of the universal applicability of natural laws that astrobiological research is conducted. Likewise, any other branch of the natural sciences could not function and advance without this principle. Furthermore, philosophical presuppositions express general guiding evaluations of reality that by definition are not open to observation or experience. The claim that nature was created and designed by an intelligent designer or the denial of this claim cannot be empirically settled. Yet, it is the notion that natural processes depend on natural causes and not on supernatural purposes which guides science.

Although the status of philosophical assumptions in science clearly differs from that of theoretical-empirical claims, these two elements are deeply connected. The interaction between the theoretical-empirical and the philosophical becomes apparent when science is examined historically. I argue that this interaction, shaped to a large extent by social and cultural factors, has resulted in the last few centuries in the establishment of the evolutionary naturalistic worldview. The major defining feature of this worldview is the rejection of supernatural teleology as necessary for the scientific study and understanding of nature.

Philosophical presuppositions of astrobiology

The natural sciences of today function within the framework of the naturalistic worldview. It is the robustness of this framework which provides validity also to branches of science that are still at the stage of establishing their fundamental data, notably the study of the origin of life on Earth and astrobiology. It has been claimed that the problem of the origin of life, yet unsolved, is the “soft underbelly of evolutionary biology” (Scott 1996).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

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.)

References

Adamala, K. and Szostak, J. W. 2013. “Nonenzymatic Template-directed RNA Synthesis Inside Model Protocells.” Science 342:1098–1110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anker, P. 2002. “Rediscovering Wallace.” MetaScience 11(3):413–415.Google Scholar
Bada, J. L. 2005. “A Field With a Life of its Own.” Science 307:46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, P. J. 1990. Charles Darwin: The Man and his Influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bowler, P. J. 2003. Evolution: The History of an Idea. Edition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ćirković, M. M. 2014. “Evolutionary Contingency and SETI Revisited.” Biology & Philosophy 29:539–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowe, M. J. 1999. The Extraterrestrial Life Debate 1750–1900. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Darling, D. 2001. Life Everywhere. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Davies, P. 1999. The Fifth Miracle. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Desmond, A. and Moore, J. 1991. Darwin. New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
Dick, S. J. 1982. Plurality of Worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dick, S. J. 1996. The Biological Universe: The Twentieth Century Extraterrestrial Life Debate and the Limits of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dick, S. J. 1998. Life on Other Worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dick, S. J., ed. 2001. Many Worlds. Philadelphia, PN: Templeton Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Dick, S. J. 2010. “The Universe of Alfred Russel Wallace.” In Natural Selection and Beyond, edited by Smith, C. H. and Beccaloni, G., Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 320–340.Google Scholar
Dick, S. J. and Strick, J. E. 2004. The Living Universe. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Dorminey, B. 2013. “Rare Earth Revisited.” Accessed 18 April, 2014. www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2013/04/21/rare-earth-revisited-anomalously-large-moon-remains-key-to-our-existence/.
Engelhart, A. E., Powner, M. W., and Szostak, J. W. 2013. “Functional RNAs Exhibit Tolerance for Non-heritable 2ʹ-5ʹ Versus 3ʹ-5ʹ Backbone Heterogeneity.” Nature Chemistry 5:390–394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fichman, M. 2001. “Science in Theistic Context: A Case Study of Alfred Russel Wallace on Human Evolution.” Osiris 16:227–250. Accessed 6 October 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/301987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fry, I. 2000. The Emergence of Life on Earth. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Fry, I. 2011. “The Role of Natural Selection in the Origin of Life.” Origins of Life & Evolution of the Biosphere 41(1):3–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fry, I. 2012. “Is Science Metaphysically Neutral?Studies in the History and Philosophy of the Biological Sciences 43:665–673.Google ScholarPubMed
Gonzales, G. and Richards, J. 2004. The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing.Google Scholar
Gonzales, G. and Richards, J. 2005. “A Response to Objections by Kyler Kuehn.” Accessed July 12, 2014. http://www.discovery.org/f/73.
Guthke, K. S. 1990. The Last Frontier. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Jefferys, W. 2005. “The Privileged Planet.” Reports of the National Center for Science Education 25(1–2):47–49.Google Scholar
Kasting, J. F. 2001. “Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee's ‘Rare Earth’.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 44(1):117–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellog, V. L. 1907. Darwinism Today. New York, NY: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Kohn, D. 1989. “Darwin's Ambiguity: The secularization of Biological Meaning.” British Journal for the History of Science 22:215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koyré, A. 1994[1957]. From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Krauss, L. 2000. “Rare Earth.” Physics Today 53(9):62–63.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1985[1957]. The Copernican Revolution. New York, NY: MJF Books.Google Scholar
Lazcano, A. and Hand, K. P. 2012. “Astrobiology: Frontier or Fiction.” Nature 488:160–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKay, C. P. 2000. “All Alone After All?Science 288:625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, J. R. 1991. “Deconstructing Darwinism.” Journal of the History of Biology 24(3):353–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, T. 2008. “Public Education and Intelligent Design.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 36(2):187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ospovat, D. 1980. “God and Natural Selection: The Darwinian Idea of Design.” Journal of the History of Biology 13(2):169–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Powner, M. W., Garland, B., and Sutherland, J. D. 2009. “Synthesis of Activated Pyrimidine Ribonucleotides in Prebiotically Plausible Conditions.” Nature 459:239–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Provine, W. 1988. “Progress in evolution and the meaning of life.” In Evolutionary Progress, edited by Nitecki, M., Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 49–74.Google Scholar
Quintana, E. V., Barclay, T., Raymond, S. N., et al. 2014. “An Earth-sized Planet in the Habitable Zone of a Cool Star.” Science 344:277–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raby, P. 2001. Alfred Russel Wallace: A Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, J. and Gonzales, G.. 2004. “Are We Alone?” The American Spectator. Accessed July 12, 2014. www.discovery.org/a/2143.
Scott, E. C. 1996. “Creationism, ideology, and science.” Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 775:515–516.Google Scholar
Seager, S. 2013. “Exoplanet Habitability.” Science 340:577–581.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simpson, G. G. 1964. “The Nonprevalence of Humanoids.” Science 143:769–775.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sloan, P. R. 1985. “The Question of Natural Purpose.” In Evolution and Creation, edited by McMullin, E., Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 121–150.Google Scholar
Smith, C. H. and Beccaloni, G., eds. 2010. Natural Selection and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wallace, A. R. 1869. “Sir Charles Lyell on Geological Climates and the Origin of Species.” Quarterly Review 126:359–394.Google Scholar
Wallace, A. R. 1870. “The Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to man.” In Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection, edited by Wallace, A. R., London: Macmillan, pp. 332–371.Google Scholar
Wallace, A. R. 1904[1903]. Man's Place in the Universe. Edition. London: Chapman and Hall Limited.Google Scholar
Ward, P. D. and Brownlee, D.. 2000. Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe. New York, NY: Copernicus.Google Scholar
Whewell, W. 1855[1853]. Of The Plurality Of Worlds. Edition. London: John W. Parker and Son.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, B. 1995. “Preface to the First Edition. 1980.” In Extraterrestrials: Where Are They? Edition, edited by Zuckerman, B. and Hart, M. H., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. xi–xii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×