Biology and Philosophy 10 (1):99-108 (1995)
|Abstract||Elliott Sober''s selection for/selection of distinction has been widely used to clarify the idea that some properties of organisms are side-effects of selection processes. It has also been used, however, to choose between different descriptions of an evolutionary product when assigning biological functions to that product. We suggest that there is a characteristic error in these uses of the distinction. Complementary descriptions of function are misrepresented as mutually excluding one another. This error arises from a failure to appreciate that selection processes can be described at several different theoretical levels.|
|Keywords||Targets of selection biological function etiological theory|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Richard N. Manning (1997). Biological Function, Selection, and Reduction. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (1):69-82.
David Walton (1991). The Units of Selection and the Bases of Selection. Philosophy of Science 58 (3):417-435.
Tim Lewens (2010). The Natures of Selection. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61 (2):313-333.
Elliott Sober (1980). Holism, Individualism, and the Units of Selection. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:93 - 121.
Samir Okasha (2001). Why Won't the Group Selection Controversy Go Away? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (1):25-50.
Elliott Sober & Richard C. Lewontin (1982). Artifact, Cause and Genic Selection. Philosophy of Science 49 (2):157-180.
C. Kenneth Waters (2005). Why Genic and Multilevel Selection Theories Are Here to Stay. Philosophy of Science 72 (2):311-333.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads26 ( #53,586 of 722,871 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,917 of 722,871 )
How can I increase my downloads?