Jean Gayon, Évolutn et philosophie - PhilPapers

Contents:

• INTRODUCTN: JEAN GAYON (1949–2018), PHILOSOPHER AND HISTORIAN OF THE LIFE SCIENC
• DU STYLE JEAN GAYON
• JEAN GAYON
• JEAN GAYON, HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF BLOGY: A NEW SYNTHIS
• JEAN GAYON AND THE HISTORIL PERSPECTIVE PHILOSOPHY OF BLOGY
• PHILOSOPHY, HISTORY AND BLOGY: ESSAYS HONOUR OF JEAN GAYON
• DOG PHILOSOPHY OF EVOLUTNARY BLOGY WH JEAN GAYON
• ÉVOLUTN ET PHILOSOPHIE

INTRODUCTN: JEAN GAYON (1949–2018), PHILOSOPHER AND HISTORIAN OF THE LIFE SCIENC

Profsor of History and Philosophy of Science at the Universy of Paris 1–Panthéon-Sorbonne sce 2000, former director of the Instute of History and Philosophy of Science and Technology (IHPST) of the CNRS, Jean Gayon (1949–2018) died on April 28th 2018 followg a long illns that he faced wh termatn and Gaston Bachelard and Ge Canguilhem, the foundg figur of the French tradn history and philosophy of science, Jean Gayon add to his philosophil trag a scientific tn to analyze his subject matter serly: the blogil scienc. 31), Canguilhem directed him towards his former stunt, François Dagog, then an fluential profsor of philosophy Lyon and Print of the jury of the “agrégatn”, who was maly known for his wrgs on Louis Pastr (1967) and on the history of natural history (1970) the tradn of Bachelard and then, Gayon had not yet turned his back on a reer blogy; he even add to his trag a Diplôme d’étus approfondi (DEA) evolutnary geics. Among many other thgs, Gayon has tght that sce Menl, the notn of heredy, which was first a legal (“herance”) and a medil term (“heredary diseas”) was brought to blogil science: no longer a “force” that fluenc om the distant past, heredy has bee a statistil phenomenon (Gayon, 2000) Darwism’s Stggle for Survival (1998), Gayon explored the major crisis Darw’s hypothis of natural selectn unrwent before was progrsively rroborated the 1930s–1950s by the batn of populatn geics, statistics, and experiments on laboratory fli.

DU STYLE JEAN GAYON

Fally, and perhaps most importantly, Gayon has tght that to unrstand a ncept clus not only havg a clear-cut fn of , but also graspg s history and , reactivatg the ntroversi that animate , and intifyg who lays claim to and to what the history of science self, Gayon’s rearch on the French school of geics, iated wh Richard Burian and Doris Zallen, and ntued wh Lrent Loison, has shed new light on the succs of the school of molecular blogy led by François Jab, Jacqu Monod, and André Lwoff. Gayon and his lleagu have shown that stead of a French mystery, whereby the succs of Jab, Monod, and Lwoff bunked a mistaken legacy of Lamarckism, was the tellectual and stutnal legacy of Cl Bernard and Louis Pastr’s experimental physlogy that enabled French rearchers to draw on emergg molecular blogy as a major tool, even though classil geics had th far remaed margal. In fact, although Jean Gayon never rolved ( a way that would have satisfied him) his dual herage—Gaston Bachelard and Thomas Kuhn, Ge Canguilhem and David Hull, which also extends beyond those fluential figur, as this volume monstrat, his own reer as a historian and a philosopher go a long way toward guidg the time to Gayon left far too soon; but his ntributns will long rema an sential reference pot to unrstand ntemporary velopment the life scienc for philosophers, historians, and sometim, blogists.

Usg the example of Darw’s theory of pangenis, which Gayon rarely examed spe his tert the history of heredy, Loison argu that one of the reasons for this omissn may be that did not f wh the “stcturalist approach” Gayon expound, an approach spired by the exampl of Imre Lakatos and Pierre Duhem and which, acrdg to Loison, set Gayon’s work apart om both philosophy of blogy and French historil send sectn of the book (“Perspectiv on Jean Gayon’s Contributns to the History of Evolutnary Theory and French Geics”) turns to Jean Gayon’s ntributns to the history and philosophy of evolutnary theory and to the emergence of French geics.

21, Hans-Jörg Rheberger brgs this volume to a close wh a personal note about his first enunters wh Jean Gayon the ntext of a nference of the Internatnal Society for the History, Philosophy, and Social Studi of Blogy, an Internatnal Colloquium honor of Marjorie Grene, and the “Cultural History of Heredy” project at the Max Planck Instute for the History of Science Berl. 4Cet article, qui s’appuiera largement sur ce rnier livre que no somm honoré d’avoir scé, t une perspective sur l’œuvre ouverte Jean Gayon, qui abor celle-ci par son objet (le darwisme) et par son style, marqué par l’hérage Ge l’homme à l’œuvre, et retour5De sa vie, son rnier livre no apprend certas détails son parurs slaire et son goût pour l sports d’endurance, Jean Gayon défissant lui-même son parurs me celui d’un « marathonien » [7]: après six ans philosophie à l’Instut tholique Paris puis à la Sorbonne (où il déuvre la philosophie s scienc grâce x enseignements Bertrand Sat-Sern et Cl Trtmontant), une fois l’agrégatn passée, et sur l nseils Ge Canguilhem, dont il suiv le urs sur « l’idéologie médile xixe siècle » durant l’année slaire 1968-1969, il s’engage pour nf ans d’étus en blogie à l’universé Paris-VI, puis à Paris-VII pour le DEA, et cela tout en étant profsr philosophie à ple temps dans un lycée s Yvel (entre 1974 et 1985).

JEAN GAYON

On y apprend, par exemple, que ce travail assidu s’t acpagné d’une médimentatn dangerse et cris déprsiv; que l’arrivée du Normand à Paris ne s’t pas fae sans vexatn et on déuvre son abandon face mépris et à la nscendance d’un profsr, en classe d’hypokhâgne, lycée Henri-IV – qui fut probablement le ntre-modèle celui qui vt pl tard le profsr Jean Gayon.

16La dimensn polémique la science t sentielle chez Jean Gayon: « Ce qui toujours m’térse, c’t la stcture d’un débat, surtout si celle-ci se perpétue sur longu pérs [32] », qu’il s’agisse ntrat théoriqu, quasi dépendant s cirnstanc historiqu d’émergence, me dans le s la théorie darwienne la sélectn et du débat origaire qui la nstue entre Aled Wallace et Darw, ou bien qu’il s’agisse ntrat étroement lié à un ntexte historique lol (stutns, tradns tellectuell, pétenc techniqu), me dans le s la génétique en France.

19Jean Gayon ne semble avoir renntré Ge Canguilhem qu’à trois ocsns: la première lorsque, jne étudiant, il fut fascé par le profsr (1969); la sen, après s étus scientifiqu, lorsqu’il lui téléphona à la recherche d’un directr thèse (1983); la troisième, alors qu’il éta jne enseignant, mais pas enre doctr, lors d’un symposium sur Buffon à Dijon (1988).

JEAN GAYON, HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF BLOGY: A NEW SYNTHIS

Mais quoique sensible x modèl mathématiqu en blogie l’évolutn, Jean Gayon ne s’t jamais opposé à la thèse la normativé vale [42] et c’t d’aillrs dans sa ntué qu’il affirme l lim d’une représentatn exclivement génétique l’firmé et d’une représentatn exclivement médile du so, qui ne prendraient pas en pte la totalé l’environnement matériel et social [43]. 23Sur le premier pot, on pt remarquer que Ge Canguilhem s’t térsé près à la blogie moléculaire, mais il fdra alors ajouter avec Jean Gayon que tandis que « Ge Canguilhem se manda si la blogie moléculaire éta portse d’un “nouve ncept la vie”, la “philosophie la blogie” amérie [avec Jean Gayon [45]] se manda si la génétique mendélienne éta réductible à la génétique moléculaire [46] ». Le troisième pot no semble déniable, et évoque l mots d’Anastass Brenner qui, remarquant que si Jean Gayon éta bien celui qui a « porté l’épistémologie ançaise sur la scène ternatnale » et qui « à la différence s maîtr […] a voulu nonter cette tradn à d’tr », se manda s’il éta rponsable ce fa nttable que « la spécificé l’épistémologie ançaise s’atténue progrsivement » [48].

Il n’y a nulle trace chez lui d’une crique du ménisme, et le réductnnisme fut une terrogatn, non un ennemi; il ne retient du valisme nguilhémien que « l’attu d’une blogie attentive à la spécificé son objet [54] », ce qui t à notre avis une errr, r, me il l’a noté lui-même aillrs (et étonnamment approuvé [55]), le valisme nguilhémien participe l’idée que cet objet spécifique t ssi le sujet la blogie (ce qui subordonne, fe, l’ontologie à l’axlogie – ce que ne sra ncér Jean Gayon). Si la tradn dualiste en philosophie s scienc (qui sépare la nnaissance scientifique et la nnaissance philosophique) acr généralement une gran part à l’histoire s scienc ntrairement à la tradn unarienne (qui réun la nnaissance philosophique et la nnaissance scientifique, pot d’admettre que la première pt ntribuer à la sen), Jean Gayon n’a jamais choisi entre l ux tradns [65]. La première t que Jean Gayon admet désormais une certae circularé du prcipe sélectn naturelle, circularé qui pt d’aillrs se trouver énoncée chez Darw, pl enre chez Spencer, et pl enre dans s formulatns ntempora qui réduisent nsidérablement son squelette logique; ce qui signifie que le prcipe sélectn naturelle n’t pas une généralisatn empirique, et donc pas une loi sens s philosoph s scienc néoposivist [87].

JEAN GAYON AND THE HISTORIL PERSPECTIVE PHILOSOPHY OF BLOGY

44Cette catn éclaire ssi l’œuvre celui qui l’énonce, et montre clairement que Jean Gayon éta darwien non par l’objet slement (la théorie l’évolutn par sélectn naturelle), mais pl enre par la métho, et pour être précis par le « style », en donnant à ce terme le sens qu’il lui a donné lui-même et qui ncilie le sgulier et l’ théorie la blogie45D quatre théori unifitric qui défissent, selon Jean Gayon, la blogie, à savoir la théorie cellulaire, la théorie l’évolutn, la théorie l’hérédé, et la « théorie matérielle la vie » (qui ne sont précisément pas réductibl), l trois rnièr furent son objet privilégié d’étus [93]. 46Dans s travx avec Maël Montévil sur la qutn la réversibilé par rapport temps s modèl génétique s populatns théoriqu, Jean Gayon d s’engager dans s « problèm théoriqu [98] », c’t-à-dire qu’il ne se ntente pas se suer dans une ntroverse débattue en philosophie la blogie, mais qu’il ouvre un problème théorique nouve, que l’on pourra résumer me su: le darwisme n’a pas tant été hanté par le progrès que par la réversibilé.

50Pour Jean Gayon, même que la théorie Motoo Kimura n’éta pas une validatn la théorie la sélectn, mais plutôt, en tégrant l variatns moléculair stochastiqu [101], un plément à celle-ci, même, l tentativ récent qui tentent d’tégrer l ux grands oubliés la génétique s populatns (l’environnement et le développement), ne sont pas s menac pour le dre théorique darwien [102]. Ce pourquoi on pourra ensue remarquer qu’une partie importante son œuvre ne relève pas la « philosophie la blogie » stricto sensu, mais plutôt la « philosophie blogique » lato sensu, si ce terme nvient pour to s travx qui portent sur l philosoph qui se sont térsés à la blogie lr temps (Nietzsche, Cournot, Bergson, Canguilhem, Dagog), tout en matenant l’tonomie ou la normativé la philosophie, que Jean Gayon quant à lui refe. » Entre l’idéologie l’génisme et celle l’enhancement, il y a bien une ntué faça, mais ce qui térse Jean Gayon, là enre, ce sont lrs différenc, qui permettent d’éclairer l stctur du débat sur l’amélratn, blogique ou médile, l’huma, et par là-même l déplacements l’idéologie, qui, d’un préjugé classe ou race, s’t transformée en idéologie du « progrès technique service s divid [118] ».

Lorsqu’il mente le célèbre article David Hull affirmant que l pèc ne sont pas s class logiqu mais s chos sgulièr, s divid, sens d’entés spat-temporellement limé [122], Jean Gayon rappelle que la thèse l’pèce humae prise me lignage unique plutôt que me classe logique (celle la nature humae) argumente « en favr la solidaré s membr et lrs rponsabilés réciproqu [123] ». Third, there is no signifint change the reprentatn of the different fields of blogy over time (over a perd of sixteen years), which suggts that philosophers of blogy are not particularly sensive to the evolutn of blogy their chapter is a particularly nvcg illtratn of what might be lled the method of “cril taxonomy” favored by Jean Gayon, which nsists g scriptn and classifitn tools (cludg statistics) to lead the rear to a bold ncln. Moreover, if a field such as the philosophy of nroscience had taken on a tly major importance the philosophy of blogy, seems very likely that Blogy & Philosophy would have been impacted by this (albe wh some lay or wh perhaps younger or ls prtig thors) therefore seems to me that the two objectns, however pertent they may be, do not validate the general observatn ma by Jean Gayon and then by myself that the philosophy of blogy has remaed for the most part nfed to one field among others of the life scienc.

PHILOSOPHY, HISTORY AND BLOGY: ESSAYS HONOUR OF JEAN GAYON

3 History of Science as an InspiratnFaced wh this observatn of the thematic narrowns of the philosophy of blogy as has been nstcted over the last thirty years, I would like to suggt that the history of science, and pecially the history of science as practiced by Jean Gayon, n be a major source of spiratn for the philosophy of, whout beg myself a specialist the history of blogy, seems to me that this field has been able to avoid the two pfalls that we have intified wh regard to the philosophy of blogy: pared to the philosophy of blogy, the history of blogy is terted a greater diversy of fields the life scienc (e. The Nobel Prize Chemistry was award 2020 to Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier for the disvery of CRISPR-Cas, so hopefully more philosophers of blogy will pay attentn to, the history of blogy—and even more so the approach of “epistemologil history” (Gayon, 2003) illtrated by Jean Gayon and Michel MorangeFootnote 10—seems to be able to functn as a mol and a source of spiratn for the philosophy of blogy, om the double pot of view of s thematic diversy and s sensivy to current chang the life scienc. 2 Three Arguments for a Historil Approach to the Philosophy of BlogyIn a survey article to which Thomas Prau allus to this volume, Jean Gayon drew a ntrasted picture of philosophy of blogy as had veloped sce the 1960s, maly , or close nnectn wh, the Anglo-Amerin amic world, ntrary to the epistemology of the life scienc that had been mostly practiced the European and Lat world, where the historil approach would appear as a domant feature among others (Gayon, 2009).

I shall take as exampl of that tegory articl that bore on the polysemy of the ncept of ‘gene’ and need to take to acunt the shift om neo-Menlian to molecular geics, sce the analytic tegori veloped by the former had existed, many stanc, wh those of the latter and would not have allowed a full argumentative send remark is that the horizon of philosophy of blogy, prented as rather monolhic the scriptn that Jean Gayon gave of , has actured, or at least, diversified to a nsirable gree. In fact, he f what he nsirs to be the sence of Darwian theori of evolutn, by a characteristic formula he fds already sketched Darw’s own works, which would also form the matrix of phas of gradual epeng for a signifint theoretil furrow: “‘Darwian’ is taken to mean any terpretatn of evolutn as beg the product of the gradual modifitn of speci, predomantly guid by a procs of natural selectn functng on a field of tra-populatnal variatn” (Gayon, 1998, p. And is a fact that whout referrg to the stcture of the Darwian mol as he analyzed , one might not unrstand eher today’s neo-Darwian theori of evolutn, nor those theoretil perspectiv that veloped as anthetilly oriented alternativ to the latter, such as epigeics, punctuated equilibrium and velopmental systems re of Jean Gayon’s analysis bears on the crisis that affected somehow ternally the Darwian theory, which tend to get rolved only the first third of the twentieth century.

It might be the se however that the latent fluence of the neo-posivist epistemic mol would expla the distance often mataed afterwards by philosophers of blogy toward the history of science, while historians of science, the same perd, would have tend to adopt orientatns that were more soclogil and more foreign to the geic unveilg of ncepts and Gayon shows the bt of ways how natural selectn acrdg to Darw do not act for some variety of a type, but for the benef of small heredary dividual variatns, which impli a system of termate relatns between variatn, heredy and transformatn a ntext of limatn supply means. The origal and oppose unterfes of the Darwian prcipl will neverthels be found pable of transformatns ways that Jean Gayon trac back meticuloly, and this the end will ntribute to the unfoldg of a rearch program that nforms to the profile of the origal Darwian theory, but endowed wh new ontologil and epistemic of the ma ntributns th achieved nsisted termg what bmetricians, such as Walter F. Surprisgly, though logilly, the bracketg of ontologil prupposns ncerng the varyg enty that would only be reprented by means of multiple rrelatns, ma possible for Pearson to arbrarily njo efficients of differential survival and fecundy to a synthetic ncept of fns: “Pearson had unrled […] that was necsary to accept that the ‘ftt’ was also the ‘the most fertile’, or, more precisely, whatever nstuted the bt promise between dividual adaptatn and productivy” (Gayon, 1998, p.

DOG PHILOSOPHY OF EVOLUTNARY BLOGY WH JEAN GAYON

The prcipal mer of Jean Gayon as a rearcher is his havg analyzed the Darwian theory of evolutn s var methodologil and epistemic aspects, first the ntext of s emergence and ial transformatns, then along s ntemporary and prent modali through the prcipl, mols and enlarged factual horizon of the synthetic theory of evolutn, as well as through the prism of the var nttatns unrwent.

Retrospectively, I n see that my own current rearch them are already there; and often, when I reopen this book to fd this or that analysis, I realize that my own limed tuns were already there, explored, veloped, or ntradicted, scientifilly tailed analys of this or that work on evolutnism prr to 1970…If I had to be more precise the exercise of my memory, I thk my first enunter wh Jean’s work was a ls well-known text, an off-prt I picked up ( was at the time when one still read thgs prted on paper) om a table rner where he’d left after a REHSEIS meetg: an article on Nietzsche and Darw (Gayon, 1999). ) this rpect he is a b like Jean Cocte, who wrote every genre, but who, at the end of his books, arranged the list of his other publitns the form of “theatril poetry”, “romantic poetry”, “cematographic poetry”, etc., to get across that whatever form his wrgs took, they always revolved around a mon centre, which was, if one accepts my proposal that this is the re of his work, what do mean to “do philosophy of evolutnary blogy wh Jean Gayon”?

His rearch, by epeng s roots, by also notg the irrcible character of the Morn Synthis as a social nstctn (as François Duchne remds this volume), had th viated towards a reference work philosophy on the nceptual history of the “hypothis of natural selectn”, as Jean nam the exact object of the nceptual thread he brgs to several years now, this has therefore been a llective project which tak up aga Jean Gayon’s ial tentn. This is what fact allows him to assert a clear nceptual difference between the “evolutnary theory of gam” and “evolutnary enomics” (Gayon, 2012), and to brg to light an orrg prciple, which retrospectively seems obv, the jumbled gs and gogs between enomics and evolutnary an analogo way, I n also rell a moment our llective exchang about the notn of functn and functnal explanatn.

ÉVOLUTN ET PHILOSOPHIE

More precisely, there appears here the strange historicy specific to evolutnary blogy, on which Jean Gayon had om the outset wanted to reflect when he was planng to tackle the synthetic character—or otherwise—of the Morn Synthis, which is the followgUltimately, everyone regniz that this synthis is only a synthis an extraordary sense of the word, bee s protagonists were rarely agreement. But above all, this transn is ls a passage than a reventn, through which the terms of the doma of spiratn (historil epistemology) see themselv transformed to a way of philosophizg that is also not the one fed by the iators of the analytic reventn is the way that Jean Gayon lks philosophy of science and history of ncepts, which turn nstut an spiratn for those followg his footsteps, the pupils, former stunts, lleagu, and means of the few remarks, should be obv that I did not want to offer an analysis of “evolutnary blogy acrdg to Jean Gayon” or even of the “the relatns between philosophy and history of the scienc acrdg to Jean Gayon”, but rather to salute a philosopher who was at once a “major ntemporary”, a lleague, a iend, and an spiratn.