ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2012
The philosophy of modelling or does the philosophy of biology have any use?
Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biology Needs Philosophy, But What Philosophy?Bioscience · 2026Review
- Nine things to keep in mind about mathematical modelling in ecology and evolution.Journal of biosciences · 2022Article
- An introduction to agent-based models as an accessible surrogate to field-based research and teaching.Ecology and evolution · 2020Article
- Article
- Predictive ecology: systems approaches.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2012Article
- Systems approaches in global change and biogeochemistry research.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Biologists in search of answers to real-world issues such as the ecological consequences of global warming, the design of species' conservation plans, understanding landscape dynamics and understanding gene expression make decisions constantly that are based on a 'philosophical' stance as to how to create and test explanations of an observed phenomenon. For better or for worse, some kind of philosophy is an integral part of the doing of biology. Given this, it is more important than ever to undertake a practical assessment of what philosophy does mean and should mean to biologists. Here, I address three questions: should biologists pay any attention to 'philosophy'; should biologists pay any attention to 'philosophy of biology'; and should biologists pay any attention to the philosophy of biology literature on modelling? I describe why the last question is easily answered affirmatively, with the proviso that the practical benefits to be gained by biologists from this literature will be directly proportional to the extent to which biologists understand 'philosophy' to be a part of biology, not apart from biology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.