From biomimicry to robotic co-creation: rethinking the boundaries between nature and technology.

This paper is an invitation to an interdisciplinary dialogue on new possibilities for integrating robotics, design, and nature. I ask: how can new cross-movements between bio-inspired science and design be fostered? How might we envision the future possible intersection between technology and nature? First, I recall key aspects of classical bioinspired engineering and highlight the role of nature in the emergence of technology. Second, I introduce a new approach to bioinspired engineering.

Biotechnics and politics: A genealogy of nonhuman technology.

This article presents a new perspective on the intersection of technology, biology, and politics in modern Germany by examining the history of biotechnics, a nonanthropocentric concept of technology that was developed in German-speaking Europe from the 1870s to the 1930s. Biotechnics challenged the traditional view of technology as exclusively a human creation, arguing that nature itself could also be a source of technical innovations. Our study focuses on the contributions of Ernst Kapp, Raoul Heinrich Francé, and Alf Giessler, highlighting the gradual shift in political perspectives that influenced the merging of nature and technology in their respective visions of biotechnics.

The elephant in the room: The biomimetic principle in bio-robotics and embodied AI.

In recent years, bio-inspired robots have shaped numerous domains of technical and scientific production. Bio-inspired robots can now be found in all areas of industry, medicine, architecture, and even culture. Despite the wealth of historiographic and philosophical studies published on this topic, a philosophical investigation of the mimetic principle used in bio-robotics is still missing.

Is biorobotics science? Some theoretical reflections.

In this paper, we ask one fairly simple question: to what extent can biorobotics be sensibly qualified as science? The answer clearly depends on what 'science' means and whether what is actually done in biorobotics corresponds to this meaning. To respond to this question, we will deploy the distinction between science and so-called technoscience, and isolate different kinds of objects of inquiry in biorobotics research. Capitalising on the distinction between 'proximal' and 'distal' biorobotic hypotheses, we will argue that technoscientific biorobotic studies address proximal hypotheses, whilst scientific biorobotic studies address distal hypotheses.

Organic form and evolution: the morphological problem in twentieth-century italian biology.

This paper examines the efforts in evolution research to understand form's structure that developed in Italy during the first half of the twentieth century. In particular, it analyzes how the organic approach in biology and the study of organic form merged in the morphological research agendas of Giuseppe Colosi (1892-1975) and Giuseppe Levi (1872-1965). These biologists sought to understand form's inner composition and structure.

A Plea for a New Synthesis: From Twentieth-Century Paleobiology to Twenty-First-Century Paleontology and Back Again.

In this paper, I will briefly discuss the elements of novelty and continuity between twentieth-century paleobiology and twenty-first-century paleontology. First, I will outline the heated debate over the disciplinary status of paleontology in the mid-twentieth century. Second, I will analyze the main theoretical issue behind this debate by considering two prominent case studies within the broader paleobiology agenda.

Challenging the Adaptationist Paradigm: Morphogenesis, Constraints, and Constructions.

In this paper, I argue that the German morphological tradition made a major contribution to twentieth-century study of form. Several scientists paved the way for this research: paleontologist Adolf Seilacher (1925-2014), entomologist Hermann Weber (1899-1956), and biologist Johann-Gerhard Helmcke (1908-1993) together with architect Frei Otto (1925-2015). All of them sought to examine morphogenetic processes to illustrate their inherent structural properties, thus challenging the neo-Darwinian framework of evolutionary theory.

Technoscientific approaches to deep time.

In this paper, I argue that in order to understand the process behind the knowledge production in the historical sciences, we should change our theoretical focus slightly to consider the historical sciences as technoscientific disciplines. If we investigate the intertwinement of technology and theory, we can provide new insights into historical scientific knowledge production, preconditions, and aims. I will provide evidence for my claim by showing the central features of paleontological and paleobiological data practices of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Series of forms, visual techniques, and quantitative devices: ordering the world between the end of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

In this paper, I investigate the variety and richness of the taxonomical practices between the end of the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries. During these decades, zoologists and paleontologists came up with different quantitative practices in order to classify their data in line with the new biological principles introduced by Charles Darwin. Specifically, I will investigate Florentino Ameghino's mathematization of mammalian dentition and the quantitative practices and visualizations of several German-speaking paleontologists at the beginning of the twentieth century.

The reception of Darwin in late nineteenth-century German paleontology as a case of pyrrhic victory.

This paper investigates German-speaking paleontologists' reception of Darwin's thought and the ways in which they negotiated their space of knowledge production accordingly. In German-speaking regions, the majority of paleontologists welcomed Darwin's magnum opus, since it granted paleontology an independent voice within biology, and thus a new institutional setting. However, in the process of negotiating the features of paleontology within the Darwinian framework, German paleontologists constrained their practices too narrowly, for fear of leaving open possible results at odds with the burgeoning Darwinian biological community.

[The Roots of Idiographic Paleontology: Karl Alfred von Zittel's Methodology and Conception of the Fossil Record].

This paper examines Karl Alfred von Zittel’s practice in order to uncover the roots of so-called idiographic paleontology.The great American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002) defined the discipline of idiographic paleontology as illustration and description of the morphological features of extinct species. However, this approach does not investigate macroevolutionary patterns and processes.

Paleontology and Darwin's Theory of Evolution: The Subversive Role of Statistics at the End of the 19th Century.

This paper examines the subversive role of statistics paleontology at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries. In particular, I will focus on German paleontology and its relationship with statistics. I argue that in paleontology, the quantitative method was questioned and strongly limited by the first decade of the 20th century because, as its opponents noted, when the fossil record is treated statistically, it was found to generate results openly in conflict with the Darwinian theory of evolution.