Browsing by Author "Usvapelto, Ilona Maaria"

In discussion on natural kinds one of the central debates is held between monistic and pluralistic view. While monists argue that things are what they are due to their microstructure, pluralists suggest there are several equally legitimate ways to define the nature of a subject. As compounds, proteins raise questions such as "How we should define natural kinds?" and "What makes an object a member of certain kind?" This thesis examines the problems that microstructural monism faces in defining macromolecules and whether it is able to answer the counter arguments. Recently studies on microbiology have shown that some proteins are able to perform secondary tasks. This ability is called moonlighting and it has raised a need for refining the theories defining proteins. To do so, in this thesis the central problems associated with the functions of proteins are introduced. After this, the solutions offered by the contemporary discussion are considered in order to decide whether microstructural essentialism can survive from challenges set by moonlighting. This thesis is divided into three sections. The first section (the chapters one, two and three) will introduce the basic terminology, the key concepts, and will provide the frames of the discussion. In the second section (the chapters four and five) the relevant structure and properties of proteins will be examined more closely. In addition to this, the current discussion is introduced in more detail. The section three (the chapters six, seven and eight) weighs various challenges set by functionality and proposes a view according to which microstructuralism may indeed be able to answer these challenges. However, this requires remodeling of the microstructural argument and reviewing its basic assumptions. This is done by reflecting and analyzing writings of Jordan Bartol, William Goodwin and Emma Tobin, with works of Sandra Mitchell, Paul Needham, Jaap van Brakel, Raphael van Riel and Robert Van Gulick. This thesis concludes that both, microstructuralism and pluralism, have trouble in explaining the structure and dynamic nature of proteins. While pluralism offers a promising ground of explaining the complexity of proteins, it does not emphasize enough the significance of chemical structure. Compared with traditional microstructuralism and pluralism, the views of Jordan Bartol and William Goodwin are in better harmony with current scientific research and, moreover, offer a more appealing answer from the metaphysical point of view. Bartol's view requires adapting dualism of kinds, where macromolecules are classified to chemical and biological kinds. Goodwin is able to hold on to monism by allowing additional levels of explanation. This thesis concludes that Goodwin's theory therefore offers the most promising ground to build a coherent theory of macromolecules. Additionally, Goodwin's levelled microstructuralism is able to retain monism.