David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Debate about adaptationism in biology continues, in part because within “the” problem of assessing adaptationism, three distinct problems are mixed together. The three problems concern the assessment of three distinct adaptationist positions, each of which asserts the central importance of adaptation and natural selection to the study of evolution, but conceives this importance in a different way. As there are three kinds of adaptationism, there are three distinct "anti-adaptationist" positions as well. Or putting it more formally, there are three different dimensions here, and strongly adaptationist views, strongly anti-adaptationist views, and moderate views are possible for each dimension.
|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
Maarten Boudry & Massimo Pigliucci (2013). The Mismeasure of Machine: Synthetic Biology and the Trouble with Engineering Metaphors. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences (4):660-668.
Angela Potochnik (2009). Optimality Modeling in a Suboptimal World. Biology and Philosophy 24 (2):183-197.
Maarten Boudry & Massimo Pigliucci (2013). The Mismeasure of Machine: Synthetic Biology and the Trouble with Engineering Metaphors. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (4):660-668.
Patrick Forber (2009). Spandrels and a Pervasive Problem of Evidence. Biology and Philosophy 24 (2):247-266.
Armin Schulz (2013). The Benefits of Rule Following: A New Account of the Evolution of Desires. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 44 (4a):595-603.
Similar books and articles
David Resnik (1996). Adaptationism: Hypothesis or Heuristic? [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 12 (1):39-50.
Thomas E. Dickins & David W. Dickins (2002). Is Empirical Imagination a Constraint on Adaptationist Theory Construction? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):515-516.
Scott Atran (2002). Modest Adaptationism: Muddling Through Cognition and Language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):504-506.
Brian Haig & Russil Durrant (2002). Adaptationism and Inference to the Best Explanation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):520-521.
John (2002). Ontology is the Problem. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):516-517.
Paul E. Griffiths (1996). The Historical Turn in the Study of Adaptation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47 (4):511-532.
Roger Sansom (2003). Constraining the Adaptationism Debate. Biology and Philosophy 18 (4):493-512.
Gillian Barker (2008). Biological Levers and Extended Adaptationism. Biology and Philosophy 23 (1):1-25.
Tim Lewens (2009). Seven Types of Adaptationism. Biology and Philosophy 24 (2):161-182.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads71 ( #60,232 of 1,906,920 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #129,894 of 1,906,920 )
How can I increase my downloads?