Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):516-517 (2002)
|Abstract||Andrews et al. claim that Gould and Lewontin's critique of adaptationism is largely epistemological rather than ontological. In this commentary I argue that, on the contrary, the deepest part of their critique is ontological, raising concerns about the existence of the traits that are the subjects of adaptationist theorising. Andrews et al.'s failure to address this problem undermines their defence of adaptationism.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
J. Cruickshank (2010). Knowing Social Reality: A Critique of Bhaskar and Archer's Attempt to Derive a Social Ontology From Lay Knowledge. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 40 (4):579-602.
Andrew Irvine (2011). An Ontological Critique of the Trans-Ontology of Enrique Dussel. Sophia 50 (4):603-624.
Colin Wight (2006). Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology. Cambridge University Press.
James Swanson, Robert Moyzis, John Fossella, Jin Fan & Michael I. Posner (2002). Adaptationism and Molecular Biology: An Example Based on ADHD. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):530-531.
Stephen Pratten (2007). The Scope of Ontological Theorising. Foundations of Science 12 (3):235-256.
Carsten Allefeld (2008). What Can We Learn From Merleau-Ponty's Ontology for a Science of Consciousness? Mind and Matter 6 (2):235-255.
Tim Lewens (2009). Seven Types of Adaptationism. Biology and Philosophy 24 (2):161-182.
Brian Haig & Russil Durrant (2002). Adaptationism and Inference to the Best Explanation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):520-521.
Paul W. Andrews, Steven W. Gangestad & Dan Matthews (2002). Adaptationism, Exaptationism, and Evolutionary Behavioral Science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):534-547.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #213,130 of 722,765 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?