Online research in philosophy

Look guys, there's an argument. Replying to my views would mean replying to the argument. So far, nobody (I mean, NOBODY) has even mentioned the existence of this argument in replying to (what they have taken to be) my views.

Here's the argument: It is short and easy. (Notice that it applies equally to both `strong' and `weak' adaptation ism, so I'm at a loss to understand what Catharine Wilson thinks that distinction has to do with the present issues.)

A theory of adaptation is supposed to be a theory of the fixation of phenotypic traits.

The Darwinian principle is that phenotypic traits are selected for their (presumably causal) connection with fitness.

Prima facie, this principle is falsified by phenotypic traits that go to fixation but are not connected to fitness (drift and the like)

Some such cases can be handled by `friendly amendments' to the Darwinian principle.

But there is a serious problem about `free riding': cases where a trait that is NOT connected to fitness goes to fixation because it is (locally or otherwise) linked to a trait that IS connected to fitness. (This is the arch/spandrel situation).

The usual way to understand cases where a process distinguishes between coextensive traits is to claim that the process is INTENSIONAL.

This is what Darwin does; he introduces the intensional context `select for...'. By stipulation, one but not the other of two coextensive traits can be selected for in an evolutionary process.

In practice, this comes down to claiming either that there are laws of selection, or that selection involves intervention by a mind (an agent).

Both these possibilities appear to be ruled out as explications of `select for...'. The first because there are no laws of selection, the second because there is no Tooth Fairy.

This appears to be a dilemma; one from which, as far as I can tell. Darwin has no exit.

Historical addendum: I suspect that Darwin got into this mess because he assumed that natural selection can be modeled by artificial selection: Start with breeding, take the breeder away, and you have natural selection. If so, then he was the victim of a fallacy of subtraction. That could happen to anybody.

I don't mind people ignoring this argument; that's gone on for some 150 years. Nor do I mind being preached to about strong adaptation, weak adaption, and so on. (One very distinguished Darwinist has suggested to me that the Theory of Evolution isn't a theory at all; it is, he said, a `tool box'.) But enough is enough. Would some body very kindly reply to the argument? Or would everybody very kindly leave me alone?

jf

PS: All this, along with a lot of other stuff, is expounded at length in a forthcoming book with Massimo Piatelli Do buy lots of copies..