The Negative View of Natural Selection

Abstract An influential argument due to Elliott Sober, subsequently strengthened by Denis Walsh and Joel Pust, moves from plausible premises to the bold conclusion that natural selection cannot explain the traits of individual organisms. If the argument were sound, the explanatory scope of selection would depend, surprisingly, on metaphysical considerations concerning origin essentialism. I show that the Sober-Walsh-Pust argument rests on a flawed counterfactual criterion for explanatory relevance. I further show that a more defensible criterion for explanatory relevance recently proposed by Michael Strevens lends support to the view that natural selection can be relevant to the explanation of individual traits.
Keywords Evolution  Natural Selection  Adaptation  Causal explanation  Contrastive explanation
Categories
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 5,705
External links
  •   Try with proxy.
  • Through your library Configure

    Similar books and articles
    Elliott Sober (1995). Natural Selection and Distributive Explanation: A Reply to Neander. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (3):384-397.
    Roberta L. Millstein (2006). Natural Selection as a Population-Level Causal Process. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (4):627-653.

    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2012-04-23

    Total downloads

    39 ( #29,866 of 549,370 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    3 ( #25,790 of 549,370 )

    How can I increase my downloads?


    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.

    Other forums