Archives

  1. Comment le hasard façonne le vivant ?

    Comment le hasard façonne le vivant ?

    Figures du hasard

    En biologie, le hasard est une notion essentielle pour comprendre les variations ; cependant, cette notion n'est généralement pas conceptualisée avec précision. Nous apportons ici quelques éléments allant dans ce sens.

    Abstract

    La physique possède plusieurs concepts de hasard qui reposent néanmoins tous sur l’idée que les possibilités sont données d’avance. En revanche, un nombre croissant de biologistes théoriciens cherchent à introduire la notion de nouvelles possibilités, c’est-à-dire des modifications de l’espace des possibles - une idée déjà discutée par Bergson et qui n’a pas été véritablement poursuivie scientifiquement jusqu’à récemment (sauf, en un sens, dans la systématique, c’est-à-dire la méthode de classification des êtres vivants). <br> Alors, le hasard opère au niveau des possibilités elles-mêmes et est à la base de l’historicité des objets biologiques. Nous soulignons que ce concept de hasard n’est pas seulement pertinent lorsqu’on cherche à prédire l’avenir. Au contraire, il façonne les organisations biologiques et les écosystèmes. À titre d’illustration, nous soutenons qu’une question cruciale de l’Anthropocène est la disruption des organisations biologiques que l’histoire naturelle a structurées, conduisant à un effondrement des possibilités biologiques.

    Citation
    Montévil, Maël. n.d. “Comment Le Hasard Façonne Le Vivant ?” In Figures Du Hasard, edited by Anne Duprat, Fiona Mcintosh-Varjabédian, Anne-Gaëlle Weber, Alison James, and Divya Dwivedi. CNRS éditions
    Manuscript Citation Full text
  2. How does randomness shape the living?

    How does randomness shape the living?

    Figures of chance II chance in theory and practice

    In biology, randomness is a critical notion to understand variations; however this notion is typically not conceptualized precisely. Here we provide some elements in that direction.

    Abstract

    Physics has several concepts of randomness that build on the idea that the possibilities are pre-given. By contrast, an increasing number of theoretical biologists attempt to introduce new possibilities, that is to say, changes of possibility space – an idea already discussed by Bergson and that was not genuinely pursued scientifically until recently (except, in a sense, in systematics, i.e, the method to classify living beings). <br> Then, randomness operates at the level of possibilities themselves and is the basis of the historicity of biological objects. We emphasize that this concept of randomness is not only relevant when aiming to predict the future. Instead, it shapes biological organizations and ecosystems. As an illustration, we argue that a critical issue of the Anthropocene is the disruption of the biological organizations that natural history has shaped, leading to a collapse of biological possibilities.

    Citation
    Montévil, Maël. 2025. “How Does Randomness Shape the Living?” In Figures of Chance II Chance in Theory and Practice, edited by Anne Duprat, Alison James, and Divya Dwivedi. Taylor & Francis
    Manuscript Citation Full text

  3. Extension du domaine de soin

    Ce séminaire a pour vocation de constituer un espace de réflexion et de discussion autour des textes de l’œuvre publiée et des archives non publiées disponibles au fonds CAPHÉS. Creusant le sillon de la journée d’étude sur les inédits de Canguilhem, ces rencontres permettront une analyse détaillée et approfondie de l’ensemble de l’œuvre canguilhémienne, au-delà de la seule thèse princeps (Le Normal et le pathologique). Il s’agit à la fois de faire connaître et approfondir de manière graduelle l’œuvre canguilhémienne, tout en nouant des liens avec ses autres écrits et les pensées avec lesquelles il entre en dialogue ou lorsque ce n’est pas le cas recueillir les échos, que ses idées rencontrent chez d’autres penseurs et chez d’autres disciplines.

  4. Quelques défis théoriques et épistémologiques entre biologie et conception orientée milieu

    La biologie théorique contemporaine prend en charge et renouvelle certaines questions fondamentales : notamment la question de l’historicité et la question des niveaux d’organisation – ainsi que le sens accordé à ce dernier terme. Nous présenterons certaines avancées dans ce domaine qui recoupent les questionnements et les défis rencontrés dans la conception orientée milieu.

  5. Disruption of biological processes in the anthropocene: The case of phenological mismatch

    Disruption of biological processes in the anthropocene: The case of phenological mismatch

    Acta Biotheoretica

    Biologists are increasingly documenting anthropogenic disruptions, both at the organism and ecosystem levels, indicating that these disruptions are a fundamental, qualitative component of the Anthropocene.

    Abstract

    Biologists increasingly report anthropogenic disruptions of both organisms and ecosystems, suggesting that these processes are a fundamental, qualitative component of the Anthropocene crisis, seemingly generating disorder. Nonetheless, the notion of disruption has not yet been theorized as such in biology. To progress on this matter, we build on a specific case. Relatively minor temperature changes disrupt plant-pollinator synchrony, tearing apart the web of life. Understanding this phenomenon requires a specific rationale since models describing them use both historical and systemic reasoning. Specifically, history justifies that the system is initially in a narrow part of the possibility space where it is viable, and the disruption randomizes this configuration. Building on this rationale, we develop a formal framework inspired by Boltzmann’s entropy. This framework defines the randomization of the system and leads to analyze its consequences systematically. Notably, maximum randomization does not lead to the complete collapse of the ecosystem. Moreover, pollinators’ robustness mostly increases viability for low randomizations, while resilience enhances viability after high randomizations. Applying this framework to empirical networks, we show historical trends depending on latitude, providing further evidence of climate change’s impact on ecosystems via phenology changes. These results lead to an initial definition of disruption in ecology. When a specific historical outcome contributes to a system’s viability, disruption is the randomization of this outcome, decreasing this viability.

    Citation
    Manuscript Citation Publisher Full text
  6. Towards a new industrial revolution? Entropy and its challenges

    Towards a new industrial revolution? Entropy and its challenges

    Technophany, A Journal for Philosophy and Technology

    Below is a podcast and transcript of the interview concerning the 1st chapter of the book Bifurquer

    Abstract

    This is a transcribed and translated  a podcast of the interview concerning the 1st chapter of the book Biurquer: Il n’y a pas d’alternative (Bifurcate: There Is No Alternative) on the scientific, technological and political stakes of the notion of entropy. The discussion took place between Bernard Stiegler, Maël Montévil, Marie Chollat-Namy and Victor Chaix, on the 1st of July 2020.

    Citation
    Stiegler, Bernard, Maël Montevil, Victor Chaix, and Marie Chollat-Namy. 2025. “Towards a New Industrial Revolution? Entropy and Its Challenges.” Edited by Joel White. Technophany, A Journal for Philosophy and Technology 2 (2): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.54195/technophany.19608
    Manuscript Citation Publisher Full text

  7. Qu’apelle-t-on produire ?

    Les notions de production et d’industrie ont, contre leurs origines historiques, été confinées dans les deux derniers siècles à ce que l’on appelle le secteur secondaire, le secteur primaire étant, lui, dévolu à la matière dite première et qui regroupe pelle-mêle l’exploitation du vivant sauvage et domestique ainsi que l’extraction minière. Pourtant les fourmis sont bien – plus ou moins – industrieuses, le concept de reproduction est l’un des plus fondamental en biologie et même les processus physiques irréversibles produisent de l’entropie. Le passage à l'échelle de ces différents types de production est néanmoins distinct - et cette question est centrale pour l'industrie. Alors que le champs et les acteurs de l’industrie se reconfigurent tant pour des raisons technologiques « qu’écologiques », il nous semble pertinent de repenser ce que signifie produire à l’aune tant de la physique que de la biologie et de la technologie.

  8. Physiology and historicity: Re-entangling the biological, the ecological and the social

    • M Montévil
      .
    • en
    • Colloque “philosophy of health – rethinking organism, environment and metabolism”
    • Sorbonne Université Salle des Fresques, Escalier D Salle D306, Paris

    Depending on the theoretical and epistemological stance in biology, the relations between the biological and social change in nature. A reductionist stance, for example, genocentrism, focuses scientific investigations on a specific part of the organism - then, the social stands, at best and by definition, in the outskirts as far as biology is concerned. On the opposite, the perspective we are elaborating for reasons internal to biology considers biology at the crossroads of historical and relational epistemologies. The object's definition is never purely based on synchronic relations, like in physics. Instead, biological objects are historical and contextual. Cultural or social determinations can enter the biological picture, more or less strongly depending on specific situations. For example, taste is a phenomenon that involves specific biological structures (taste buds, olfactory receptors), and one may think that it is independent of society. Food pairing studies showed instead that the way to perform associations depends on the culture. Of course, historicity also means that other receptors can also creatively be recruited, which is the case with the capsaicin of chili pepper that triggers pain receptors.

  9. The closure of constraints in practices

    • M Montévil
      M Montévil
      &
      A Robert
      A Robert
      .
    • en
    • Salle de réunion du centre Cavaillès, ENS

    What understanding does the closure of constraints bring about a biological system in practices? Without discussing particular cases, one cannot answer this question. The goal of this workshop is to bring together and synthesize individual modeling experiences in physiology and ecology to establish perspectives of research collectively regarding organization in biology, sensu closure of constraints. This workshop is intended to a specialized audience. We encourage speakers to present models or modeling methods, and share critical reflections on their work and the difficulties encountered. Identifying achievements, open questions, perspectives, and experimental, conceptual or technical difficulties is the main goal of this meeting. Additionally to relatively short Q&A sessions, a general discussion will synthesize the main points raised during the day. This synthesis will be transcribed and shared with the participants after the workshop.

Filter by year to see more archives.