I. the origin of species by means of natural selection

Traditional engineering instruction is deductive, beginning with theories and progressing to the applications of those theories Alternative teaching approaches are more inductive Topics are introduced by presenting specific observations, case studies or problems, and theories are taught or the students are helped to discover them only after the need to know them has been established This study reviews several of the most commonly used inductive teaching methods, including inquiry learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning, case-based teaching, discovery learning, and just-in-time teaching The paper defines each method, highlights commonalities and specific differences, and reviews research on the effectiveness of the methods While the strength of the evidence varies from one method to another, inductive methods are consistently found to be at least equal to, and in general more effective than, traditional deductive methods for achieving a broad range of learning outcomes

Inductive Teaching and Learning Methods: Definitions, Comparisons, and Research Bases

(1963). Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Technometrics: Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 128-130.

Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine

http://academic.oup.com/auk/article-pdf/102/3/661/30080634/auk0661.pdf

Scaling: why is animal size so important?

Lost in the translation.

Biological complexity has forced scientists to develop highly reductive approaches, with an ever-increasing degree of specialization. As a consequence, research projects have become fragmented, and their results strongly dependent on the experimental context. The general research question, that originally motivated these projects, appears to have been forgotten in many highly specialized research programmes. We here investigate the prospects for use of an old regulative ideal from systems theory to describe the organization of cellular systems 'in general' by identifying key concepts, challenges and strategies to pursue the search for organizing principles. We argue that there is no tension between the complexity of biological systems and the search for organizing principles. On the contrary, it is the complexity of organisms and the current level of techniques and knowledge that urge us to renew the search for organizing principles in order to meet the challenges that are arise from reductive approaches in systems medicine. Reductive approaches, as important and inevitable as they are, should be complemented by an integrative strategy that de-contextualizes through abstractions, and thereby generalizes results.

https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/febs.12311

The search for organizing principles as a cure against reductionism in systems medicine.

/pdf/biology-meets-physics-reductionism-and-multi-scale-modeling-40ti5triml.pdf

Biology meets physics: Reductionism and multi-scale modeling of morphogenesis

The increasing application of network models to interpret biological systems raises a number of important methodological and epistemological questions. What novel insights can network analysis provide in biology? Are network approaches an extension of or in conflict with mechanistic research strategies? When and how can network and mechanistic approaches interact in productive ways? In this paper we address these questions by focusing on how biological networks are represented and analyzed in a diverse class of case studies. Our examples span from the investigation of organizational properties of biological networks using tools from graph theory to the application of dynamical systems theory to understand the behavior of complex biological systems. We show how network approaches support and extend traditional mechanistic strategies but also offer novel strategies for dealing with biological complexity.

/pdf/network-analyses-in-systems-biology-new-strategies-for-8cbs9avdhs.pdf

Network analyses in systems biology: new strategies for dealing with biological complexity

Despite numerous and increasing attempts to define what life is, there is no consensus on necessary and sufficient conditions for life. Accordingly, some scholars have questioned the value of definitions of life and encouraged scientists and philosophers alike to discard the project. As an alternative to this pessimistic conclusion, we argue that critically rethinking the nature and uses of definitions can provide new insights into the epistemic roles of definitions of life for different research practices. This paper examines the possible contributions of definitions of life in scientific domains where such definitions are used most (e.g., Synthetic Biology, Origins of Life, Alife, and Astrobiology). Rather than as classificatory tools for demarcation of natural kinds, we highlight the pragmatic utility of what we call operational definitions that serve as theoretical and epistemic tools in scientific practice. In particular, we examine contexts where definitions integrate criteria for life into theoretical models that involve or enable observable operations. We show how these definitions of life play important roles in influencing research agendas and evaluating results, and we argue that to discard the project of defining life is neither sufficiently motivated, nor possible without dismissing important theoretical and practical research.

/pdf/is-defining-life-pointless-operational-definitions-at-the-10znaxlv6u.pdf

Is defining life pointless? Operational definitions at the frontiers of biology

Due to the variation, contingency and complexity of living systems, biology is often taken to be a science without fundamental theories, laws or general principles. I revisit this question in light of the quest for design principles in systems biology and show that different views can be reconciled if we distinguish between different types of generality. The philosophical literature has primarily focused on (the lack of) generality of specific models or explanations, or on the heuristic role of abstraction. This paper takes a different approach in emphasizing a theory-constituting role of general principles. Design principles signify general dependency-relations between structures and functions, given a set of formally defined constraints. I contend that design principles increase our understanding of living systems by relating specific models to general types. The categorization of types is based on a delineation of the scope of biological possibilities, which serves to identify and define the generic features of classes of systems. To characterize the basis for general principles through generic abstraction and reasoning about possibility spaces, I coin the term constraint-based generality. I show that constraint-based generality is distinct from other types of generality in biology, and argue that general principles play a unifying role that does not entail theory reduction.

Sara Green

Papers

The search for organizing principles as a cure against reductionism in systems medicine.

Biology meets physics: Reductionism and multi-scale modeling of morphogenesis

Network analyses in systems biology: new strategies for dealing with biological complexity

Is defining life pointless? Operational definitions at the frontiers of biology

Revisiting generality in biology: systems biology and the quest for design principles