Graduate studies at Western
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):520-521 (2002)
|Abstract||Andrews et al. effectively argue that, despite prominent criticism, adaptationism can be a viable research strategy. We agree. In our complementary commentary, we discuss the neglected method of inference to the best explanation and argue that it is a valuable addition to the adaptationist's methodological practice.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
D. Turner (2000). The Functions of Fossils: Inference and Explanation in Functional Morphology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 31 (1):193-212.
David Resnik (1996). Adaptationism: Hypothesis or Heuristic? [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 12 (1):39-50.
Yemima Ben-Menahem (1990). The Inference to the Best Explanation. Erkenntnis 33 (3):319-44.
Tim Lewens (2009). Seven Types of Adaptationism. Biology and Philosophy 24 (2):161-182.
John (2002). Ontology is the Problem. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):516-517.
S. Okasha (2003). Fodor on Cognition, Modularity, and Adaptationism. Philosophy of Science 70 (1):68-88.
Gillian Barker (2008). Biological Levers and Extended Adaptationism. Biology and Philosophy 23 (1):1-25.
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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads26 ( #53,645 of 739,350 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,538 of 739,350 )
How can I increase my downloads?