Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||The paper provides a new critical perspective on the propensity interpretation of fitness, by investigating its relationship to the propensity interpretation of probability. Two main conclusions are drawn. First, the claim that fitness is a propensity cannot be understood properly: fitness is not a propensity in the sense prescribed by the propensity interpretation of probability. Second, this interpretation of probability is inessential for explanations proposed by the propensity interpretation of fitness in evolutionary biology. Consequently, interpreting the probabilistic dimension of fitness in terms of propensities is neither a strong motivation in favor of this interpretation, nor a possible target for substantial criticism|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Susan K. Mills & John H. Beatty (1979). The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness. Philosophy of Science 46 (2):263-286.
Marshall Abrams (2007). Fitness and Propensity's Annulment? Biology and Philosophy 22 (1):115-130.
Andre Ariew (2009). What Fitness Can't Be. Erkenntnis 71 (3):289 - 301.
Charles H. Pence & Grant Ramsey (2013). A New Foundation for the Propensity Interpretation of Fitness. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (4):axs037.
Christopher S. I. Mccurdy (1996). Humphrey's Paradox and the Interpretation of Inverse Conditional Propensities. Synthese 108 (1):105 - 125.
Niall Shanks (1993). Time and the Propensity Interpretation of Probability. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 24 (2):293 - 302.
Donald Gillies (2000). Varieties of Propensity. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (4):807-835.
Robert C. Richardson & Richard M. Burian (1992). A Defense of Propensity Interpretations of Fitness. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:349 - 362.
Roberta L. Millstein (forthcoming). Probability in Biology: The Case of Fitness. In A. Hájek & C. R. Hitchcock (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Probability and Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
Mauricio Suárez (2004). On Quantum Propensities: Two Arguments Revisited. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 61 (1):1-16.
Alex Rosenberg (2004). Fitness, Probability and the Principles of Natural Selection. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (4):693 - 712.
James H. Fetzer (1983). Probability and Objectivity in Deterministic and Indeterministic Situations. Synthese 57 (3):367--86.
Frédéric Bouchard & Alex Rosenberg (2004). Fitness, Probability and the Principles of Natural Selection. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (4):693-712.
Christian Hennig (2007). Falsification of Propensity Models by Statistical Tests and the Goodness-of-Fit Paradox. Philosophia Mathematica 15 (2):166-192.
Robert Brandon & John Beatty (1984). The Propensity Interpretation of 'Fitness'--No Interpretation is No Substitute. Philosophy of Science 51 (2):342-347.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-10-20
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?