{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02155887230514096, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.253886010362694, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The philosophy of modelling or does the philosophy of biology have any use?

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.