Ivanhoé Baracho
Marta Baracho
Welcome!
The author Dr .Ivanhoé R. Baracho, was professor of Genetics at the University of Brasília / DF and the University of Campinas (UNICAMP / SP), where he worked for a long time with Genetics of Microorganisms. Now he is dedicated to the Philosophy of Biology.
The author Doctor. Marta dos Santos Baracho. He holds a Ph.D. in Genetics and Molecular Biology from the State University of Campinas (UNICAMP - 1999). He holds a Ph.D. in Genetics and Molecular Biology from the Pontifical Catholic University of Campinas (PUCCAMP - 1989), a Masters in Genetics from the State University of Campinas (1994). Post - Doctorate - Feagri Unicamp, FAPESP Scholarship from 1999 to 2002. Experience of 15 years in higher education. Accredited a Collaborating Researcher at the State University of Campinas. She has experience in Genetics and Microbiology.
Dear Mr. (a). We offer several of our public titles for downloads:
Antaŭparolo
Tiu-ĉi libro estas kolekto de artikoloj, kiuj estas publikigitaj antaŭ, malkune en serio nomata Kajero de Scienco. Ĝi estas dividita en du parton. La unua parto enhavas artikolojn, kiuj serĉas fari revizion de la biologio, kaj la dua parto enhavas artikolojn, kiuj prezentas analizon matematikan de iuj biologiaj temoj.
Ni konsideras ke la biologio, malgaŭ sia elvolvo, estas ankoraŭ, ĉe pluraj aspektoj, problema scienco, kiu postulas revizion. Ĝi havas antaŭlonge problemojn, kiuj ankoraŭ ne estis solvitaj. Eĉ sia nomo mem estas problema. Jam T. Huxley rakontas ke ricevis tezon, kie klera eminentulo, D-ro Field de Norwich, serĉis pruvi, ke ĉe la filologia vidpunkto, Lamarck kaj Treviranus ne havis rajton elpensi la novan vorton biologio por la celo, kiu ili celis, ĉar la greka vorto bios, rilatiĝas al la homa vivo aŭ al la homaj aferoj, uzante la grekoj alian esprimon por paroli pri la vivo vegetala kaj animala. Por D-ro Field, anstataŭ biologio, oni devis uzi la vorton Zootokologio.
Preface
When I received the material for reading it empowered my curiosity. Some of the questions that are raised there I have myself, and I believe that some of us remain with them answered. The authors say “ It was necessary to fall one apple on the head of Newton, to the discovery of gravity. What thing will be required to the biology discover the nature of life?”
Biology has gone so many steps in the understanding of how life adapts, expands, starts, and end, but it is still a mystery to learn about its nature. Numerous known criteria used to define and analyze life were evaluated by the authors such as the animism, the vitalism, the organicism, the mechanism, and other ways of physical-chemical understanding. I certainly agree with the author when they share their vision that “Theoretical biology is nothing more than mathematics applied to the phenomena that occur in living things.”
The discussion grows up towards the meaning of life and its definition. In that part of the book, the authors make clear that several authors have already tried to define life from distinct points of view. It is fascinating how life as a subject could be explored in such a deep way. Most dictionaries explain life in words such as “the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.” This is a poor and simple explanation.
Downloads - Biologia em análise
Prefácio
Este livro é uma coleção de artigos que foram publicados antes, separadamente, em uma série chamada Kajero de Scienco. Ele está dividido em duas partes. A primeira parte contém artigos que procuram fazer uma revisão da biologia, e a segunda parte contém artigos que apresentam uma análise matemática de alguns tópicos biológicos.
Consideramos que a biologia, apesar de seu progresso, ainda é, em vários aspectos, uma ciência problemática que requer uma revisão. Tem problemas antigos que ainda não foram resolvidos e até seu nome é problemático. T. Huxley conta que recebeu uma tese, onde o eminente Dr. Field de Norwich, procurou provar que Lamarck e Treviranus não tinham o direito de inventar a nova palavra biologia para o fim que pretendiam, já que, do ponto de vista filológico, a palavra grega bios, está relacionada com a vida humana ou assuntos humanos, usando os gregos outra expressão para falar sobre a vida vegetal e animal. Para o Dr. Field, em vez de biologia, devemos usar a palavra Zootocologia. Assim, de acordo com o Dr. Field, não devemos traduzir a palavra biologia, como um estudo da vida vegetal e animal.
Mas esse não é o pior problema da biologia. Essa ciência tentou ser a ciência da vida, mas não foi bem-sucedida na definição da vida animal e vegetal. Todos os esforços nessa direção foram, até agora, inúteis e Claude Bernard afirmava que "não há meios de definir ou caracterizar a vida, por uma característica exclusiva. As definições apresentadas, até o momento, são confusas ou errôneas".
No entanto, Bergson foi mais radical. Bergson considerou que a ciência não tinha nada a dizer sobre a vida e que o pensamento, em sua forma puramente lógica, não poderia explicar a verdadeira natureza da vida.
A ideia de que a vida não pode ser definida é a ideia que domina entre os biólogos. Para Mayr, os esforços para definir a vida são inúteis, pois agora está claro que não há substância, objeto ou força especial que possa ser identificada como vida.
Mas, para Mayr, o processo da vida é definível. Claro que esta é uma visão curiosa que requer esclarecimentos. No entanto, Mayr apresenta outra visão ainda mais curiosa, quando afirma que a biologia é uma ciência excêntrica, cujas teorias são baseadas em conceitos e não em leis.
Sem dúvida, a biologia tem muitos problemas dignos de análise. Aqui, apenas alguns tópicos são analisados, e esperamos que essas análises possam ser úteis para a promoção da biologia e possam fazer com que essa ciência avance no campo teórico.
Os Autores
Preface
This book is a collection of articles that have been
published before, in a series called Kajero
de Scienco. It is divided into two
parts. The first part contains articles that look for a biology review, and the
second part contains articles that present a mathematical analysis of some
biological topics.
We consider that biology, in spite of its
progress, is still, in several aspects, a problematic science that requires a
review. It has old problems that have not yet been solved. Even his own name is
problematic. T. Huxley already tells that he received a thesis, where the eminent
Dr. Field of Norwich, sought to prove that Lamarck and Treviranus did not have
the right to invent the new word biology for the purpose that they intended,
since, at the philological point of view, the Greek word bios, is related to human life or human affairs, using the Greeks
another expression to talk about the life of vegetal and animal. For Dr. Field,
instead of biology, we must use the word Zootocology.
Thus, according to Dr. Field, we ought not to
translate the word biology, as a study of
vegetal and animal life.
But that is not the worst
problem of biology. This science tried to be the science of life, but it was
not successful in defining the animal and vegetal life. Every effort in this
direction was, until now, vain and Claude Bernard already claimed that
"there is no means to define or
characterize life, by an exclusive characteristic. The definitions presented,
up to this time, are confused or erroneous. "
However, Bergson was more
radical. Bergson considered that science had nothing to say about life and that the thought, in its form purely
logical, could not explain the true nature of life.
The idea that life cannot be defined
is the idea that dominates among biologists. For Mayr, the efforts to define
life are worthless, since now it is clear that there is no substance, object or
special force that can be identified with life.
But, for Mayr, the process of life
is definable. Of course, this is a curious view that requires clarification.
However, Mayr presents another vision even more curious, when he claims that
biology is an eccentric science, whose theories are based on concepts and not
on laws.
Undoubtedly, biology has many
problems worthy of analysis. Here, only a few topics are analyzed, and we hope
that these analyzes can be useful for the promotion of biology and can make
that science advance in the theoretical field.
The authors
A Biologia tem por objeto as interações superiores, isto é, interações que envolvem conjunto de moldes.
Mas se esse é o problema fundamental da Biologia, então, duas teorias são também fundamentais para essa ciência: A teoria dos moldes e a teoria do processo vital.
Vários elementos do processo vital são moldes. Assim, a natureza desse processo pode ser melhor entendida através do estudo dos moldes biológicos. Esses são os elementos que, devido suas propriedades específicas, representam a fonte de ordem, observada nos processos vitais. É também da atividade desses moldes, dentro desses processos, que os princípios biológicos fundamentais surgem.
A ideia de molde é tão intuitiva como a ideia de informação. Contudo, a ideia de molde é mais apropriada para interpretação dos fenômenos biológicos do que a ideia de informação, que tem se mostrado, imprópria, para interpretação desses fenômenos.
Assim, no plano biológico, a teoria dos moldes representa uma alternativa para a teoria da informação.
Mas, nem todos os elementos dos processos vitais são moldes, e o estudo desses elementos é tão importante para a Biologia como o estudo dos moldes. Assim, para entender os fenômenos biológicos, outra teoria é também necessária, isto é, a teoria do processo vital, que é um sistema hipotético-dedutivo que visa estabelecer um esquema teórico para os fenômenos biológicos básicos e procura determinar a natureza, estrutura, relacionamento e transformação do, assim chamado, processo vital.
A teoria identifica vários níveis do processo, os quais podem se relacionar entre si, de tal maneira que os mais simples estão imbricados nos mais complexos.
Mas, os mais simples processos vitais envolvem as, assim chamadas, interações superiores. Portanto, a teoria do processo vital lida com as interações que envolvem conjuntos de moldes e procura explicar os problemas biológicos fundamentais.
O que estamos tentando, portanto, é estabelecer as bases de uma nova Biologia. Uma Biologia que tem um objeto claro, uma Biologia que não se limita a ser uma ciência empírica.
INTRODUCTION
Biology must concern itself
with the study of superior interactions, i.e., interactions that involve sets
of molds.
But, if this is a fundamental problem of biology, then two
theories are also fundamental for this science: the theory of the
biological molds and the theory of the living process.
Several
elements of the life process are molds. Thus, the nature of this process can
best be understood through the study of biological molds. These are the
elements that, due to their specific properties, represent the source of order
observed in the vital processes. It is also from the activity of these molds
within these processes that fundamental biological principles emerge.
The
idea of mold is as intuitive as the idea of information. However, the idea
of mold is more appropriate for the interpretation of biological phenomena
than the idea of information, which has proved improper, for the
interpretation of these phenomena.
Thus, biologically, mold theory represents an
alternative to information theory. But not all elements of life processes are
molds, and the study of these elements is as important to biology as the study
of molds. Thus, to understand biological phenomena, another theory is also
necessary, that is, the theory of the vital process, which is a
hypothetical-deductive system that aims to establish a theoretical framework
for basic biological phenomena and seeks to determine the nature, structure,
relationship, and transformation of the so-called vital process.
The theory identifies several levels of
the process, which can relate to each other so that the simplest are interwoven
in the most complex.
But the simplest vital processes involve
the so-called superior interactions. Therefore, the vital process theory deals
with the interactions involving sets of molds and seeks to explain the
fundamental biological problems.
What we are trying, therefore, is to lay the
foundations of new biology. Biology that has a clear object, a biology that is
not limited to being an empirical science.
For Felix Mainx, biology is an
empirical science and is no more than the set of sciences that study living
things. Analyzing the problem of speculation in biology, he considers that, in
relation to this, the question arises of the existence of theoretical biology,
as an independent science, and tries to show that such science is
unjustifiable. He points out that some authors, especially von Bertalanffy,
have firmly stated that this branch should be taken into account in the
organization of teaching and research and seek to draw attention to the
parallel case of theoretical physics. However, it does not see this as a
correct comparison, since, in the case of physics, the domain of a specific
mechanism of applied mathematics presupposes a special penchant and method,
whereas, in the field of biology, the situation is very different, since so far,
no special mathematical mechanism was necessary to establish a system of theories
which, on the contrary, always resulted from a persistent contact with
experimental research.
Thus, for him, theoretical biology
would have no meaning and would mean an intellectual delay or the encouragement
of speculative tendencies, which could not promote the development of science.
Moreover, a purely theoretical Biology would be useless, therefore, it would be
incapable of making any scientific statement, which could not be made by the
special disciplines relating to living beings.
For this author, the concept of general
biology means nothing more than a synthesis of simple biological disciplines,
and the attempt to establish a special field of research in general biology
with its own and characteristic methods is by no means justified.
However, the efforts
to establish theoretical biology come from far and stem from the very goals
assigned to science in general. For Rickert, "the supreme ideal of the
natural sciences is to establish laws," and it was in pursuit of this
ideal, that biology walked. And many attempts were made to achieve that
"abstract state" of which Grot spoke, as a necessary stage of his
evolution.
Many have thought and think different
from Felix Mainx. And among these there, is no way to emphasize Felix Le
Dantec, for his fabulous failure and extraordinary persistence. Perhaps it was
he who insisted most on establishing deductive biology. This was his dream, as
he himself confesses in the book La Science de La Vie, although he no
longer had, as he did twenty years ago, the pretense of convincing his
contemporaries.
For
Le Dantec, there is a science of life called general biology. The word Biology
would be enough if this was not an abuse. In his face, it was necessary to add
the general qualifier, to distinguish from the purely descriptive sciences,
simple catalogs of observed facts, the science that seeks to verify if there is
anything of common, in all the phenomena that occur in living beings.
According to him, no one could deny
that facts obtained in natural history were material to serve the establishment
of Biology. These studies were interesting to the biologist as far as they were
useful for establishing general laws. But, by no means, the attainment of these
facts could constitute the biology.
In his view, the biologist's role would
be to discover the general law in the particular fact. The truly general laws
were applied to everything. General biology should look for the laws that were applied
to all living beings, and only to them. But in order to discover the general
laws of life, it was necessary, first of all, to believe that these laws
existed, in other words, to believe in the existence of general biology.
In the book La Stabilité de la Vie,
Le Dantec raises the problem of deduction in biology and considers that, if
this is not possible in the natural sciences, they do not deserve the name of
science, and must resign themselves to the modest denomination of history, by
which were once stigmatized. Putting life among natural phenomena, he begins to
admit that biology is but a chapter of physics, and that in both biology and
physics one can find general principles, that are easy predict. He thinks that
there can be deductive biology, as exist thermodynamics and mathematical
optics, and that this biology can have, in the natural sciences, the same role
that mathematical physics has among physicists. These
two opposing points of view, that of Mainx and that of Le Dantec, each assigning
to Biology a different object. Whereas, for the former, biology was the set of
sciences that study living beings; for the latter, biology was the science of
life.
But to the extent that the word life loses its status as a scientific concept,
a science of life is no longer grounded. Le Dantec himself recognizes this when
he writes:
"The general biology can therefore
exist: it must exist if the word life has “raison d'être”. The greatest
of physiologists, Claude Bernard, buried this science before it was even born
when it announced its famous aphorism: life is dead. The paradoxical form of
this aphorism seduced the crowd, still seduced it, was the negation of
biology."
