Just submitted the following abstract to International Conference on Philosophy of Sciences and Technology happening in Prague, 2020. Not sure whether this is the place to go with stuff like this, but giving it a try.
Title: Aging is agings: towards a consensus recursive definition of biological aging(s)
Abstract: Current clinically focused biological aging research, or translational geroscience is going through incredible progress. There’s finally an emerging scientific consensus about our understanding of the major molecular and cellular hallmark processes driving biological aging.
Yet, this consensus is not reflected in a consensus definition of what biological aging is. In the literature, for some reason, almost all scientists feel compelled to come up with their own introductory definitions of aging usually as the first sentence, or part of the first paragraph, of the introduction of their respective papers. Not too surprisingly these opinions on what biological aging is differ a lot, yielding highly idiosyncratic ‘definitions’ that were never accepted as consensus views within the research community. So the problem is while the underlying science goes strong, the conceptual top level, acknowledging this situation, is strangely neglected.
How can the philosophy of science help here with its sophisticated conceptual and logical toolset? By suggesting a good definition! Continue reading “Recursive Aging Definition talk submission at ICPST 2020, in Prague”
In the first part of this study, Aging is agings: towards a recursive definition of biological aging(s); part 1, definition the following definition of biological aging(s) was introduced:
Biological aging is agings underneath, the result of multiple, diverse, separate but malleable processes, eventually compromising normal functions of the organism at different rates and at all levels.
Today it is explication time to build up the argument behind this definition. I have 4 points to offer today in the forms of questions and brief descriptive hints in the titles, here they are.
#1 What is the most confusing thing about biological aging? It’s diversity, plurality and broad-spectrum
#2 Why we need to come up with a good working definition of biological aging? Because current status looks like a prescientific and confusing mess
#3 Why we must come up with a good consensus definition? To acknowledge and further the emerging consensus framework within aging research
#4 What kind of definition we would like to come up with? An explicative one, both stipulative and descriptive, innovative and conservative at the same time Continue reading “Aging is agings: towards a recursive definition of biological aging(s); part 2, Explication”
In the earlier post with the terrible title of What is the philosophy of biological aging research/biogerontology/translational geroscience/? Problems I listed the following as Problem #1:
What is a good working definition of biological aging, that is formally correct, scalable, yet flexible enough to incorporate new knowledge and can be used to design interventions to counteract it?
In what follows I propose such a definition and it sounds like this:
Biological aging is agings underneath, the result of multiple, diverse, separate but malleable processes, eventually compromising normal functions of the organism at different rates and at all levels.The definition of biological aging(s) proposed in this study
This definition of biological aging is a formally correct recursive definition, that is non-circular, consisting of a couple of bases cases serving to explain the more composite processes, being able to scale up at all levels Continue reading “Aging is agings: towards a recursive definition of biological aging(s); part 1, Definition”