David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 70 (5):989-1001 (2003)
At least below the level of species, biological populations are not mind‐independent objects that scientists discover. Rather, biological populations are pragmatically constructed as objects of investigation according to the aims, interests, and values that inform particular research contexts. The relations among organisms that are constitutive of population‐level phenomena (e.g., mating propensity, genealogy, and competition) occur as matters of degree and so give rise to statistically defined open‐ended biological systems. These systems are rendered discrete units to satisfy practical needs and theoretical preferences associated with specific contexts of investigation. While it may be possible to defend a realist position regarding biological relations among organisms, biological populations are “made” when contextual features determine which kinds and degrees of relations to privilege over others, and so how to bound genes in space and time. Consequently, the objectivity of population‐based approaches to species genome diversity cannot rest in the mind‐independence of populations themselves.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Jacob Stegenga (2010). Population is Not a Natural Kind of Kinds. Biological Theory 5 (2):154-160.
Roberta L. Millstein (2009). Populations as Individuals. Biological Theory 4 (3):267-273.
Matthew J. Barker & Joel D. Velasco (2014). Deep Conventionalism About Evolutionary Groups. Philosophy of Science 80 (5):971-982.
Jacob Stegenga (2010). "Population" Is Not a Natural Kind of Kinds. Biological Theory 5 (2):154–160.
Similar books and articles
Niles Eldredge (1984). Large-Scale Biological Entities and the Evolutionary Process. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1984:551 - 566.
Manfred A. Pfeifer, Klaus Henle & Josef Settele (2007). Populations with Explicit Borders in Space and Time: Concept, Terminology, and Estimation of Characteristic Parameters. Acta Biotheoretica 55 (4):305-316.
David Queller (2011). A Gene's Eye View of Darwinian Populations. Biology and Philosophy 26 (6):905-913.
Alicia Sánchez-Mazas, Laurent Excoffier & André Langaney (1986). Measure and Representation of the Genetic Similarity Between Populations by the Percentage of Isoactive Genes. Theoria 2 (1):143-154.
B. W. Kooi (2003). Numerical Bifurcation Analysis of Ecosystems in a Spatially Homogeneous Environment. Acta Biotheoretica 51 (3):189-222.
Hans-Rolf Gregorius (1992). A Single-Locus Model of Speciation. Acta Biotheoretica 40 (4):313-319.
Marc Ereshefsky & Mohan Matthen (2005). Taxonomy, Polymorphism, and History: An Introduction to Population Structure Theory. Philosophy of Science 72 (1):1-21.
Eva Sanchez, Pierre Auger & Rafael Bravo de la Parra (1997). Influence of Individual Aggressiveness on the Dynamics of Competitive Populations. Acta Biotheoretica 45 (3-4):321-333.
Werner Kunz & Markus Werning, The Biological Species as a Gene-Flow Community. Species Essentialism Does Not Imply Species Universalism.
Lisa Gannett (2003). Making Populations: Bounding Genes in Space and in Time. Philosophy of Science 70 (5):989-1001.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads37 ( #54,623 of 1,410,448 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #107,949 of 1,410,448 )
How can I increase my downloads?