Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why Evolution is Really Indeterministic

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Leslie Graves, Barbara Horan and Alex Rosenberg (1999) have argued that the process of evolution is really deterministic, so we should be instrumentalists about our probabilistic evolutionary theory. I criticize the consistency of their view. I argue that because they are realists towards multiple theories (quantum mechanics and macrophysics) their arguments against realism for another scientific theory fail. The main point of this paper is critical, but in order to set up this criticism I explore the ramifications of realism for multiple theories. Finally, I offer a brief metaphysical justification for realism about multiple theories. This view justifies realism for evolutionary theory, which has been defended by Robert Brandon and Scott Carson (1996).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Brandon, R.: 1996, Concepts and Methods in Evolutionary Biology, Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandon, R. and S. Carson: 1996, ‘The Indeterministic Character of Theory of evolution: No “No Hidden Variables Proof” but No Room for Determinism Either’, Philosophy of Science 63, 315–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, N.: 1983, How the Laws of Physics Lie, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eddington, A.: 1928, The Nature of the Physical World, The University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graves, L., B. Horan, and A. Rosenberg: 1999, ‘Is Indeterminism the Source of the Probabilistic Character of Evolutionary Theory?’, Philosophy of Science 66, 140–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horan, B.: 1994, ‘The Probabilistic Character of Theory of Evolution’, Philosophy of Science 61, 76–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Railton, P.: 1978, ‘A Deductive Nomological statistical Model of Probabilistic Explanation’, Philosophy of Science 45, 206–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Railton, P.: 1981, ‘Probability, Explanation, and Information’, Synthese 48, 233–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, A.: 1994, Instrumental Biology or the Disunity of Science, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E.: 1984, The Nature of Selection, MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamos, D.: 2001, ‘Quantum Indeterminism and Evolutionary Biology’, Philosophy of Science 68(2), 164–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trenholme, R.: 1978, ‘A Physicialist Analysis of Probability’, Nous 12(3), 303–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M.: 1988, ‘Critical Notice: John Earman's A Primer on Determinism, Philosophy of Science’, 56, 502–532.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and, U.S.A

    R. Sansom

  2. Department of Philosophy, Texas A & M University, 314 Bolton Hall, College Station, TX, 77843-4237, U.S.A. E-mail

    R. Sansom

Authors
  1. R. Sansom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sansom, R. Why Evolution is Really Indeterministic. Synthese 136, 263–279 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024739731042

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024739731042

Keywords

Search

Navigation