In A. Barahona, H.-J. Rheinberger & E. Suarez-Diaz (eds.), The Hereditary Hourglass: Genetics and Epigenetics, 1868-2000. Max Planck Insititute for the History of Science (2010)
|Abstract||The synthetic theory of evolution has gone stale and an expanding or (re-)widening of it towards a new synthesis has been announced. This time, development and culture are supposed to join the synthesis bandwagon. In this article, I distinguish between four kinds of synthesis that are involved when we extend the evolutionary synthesis towards culture: the integration of fields, the heuristic generation of interfields, the expansion of validity, and the creation of a common frame of discourse or ‘big-picture’. These kinds of synthesis are connected to epistemic values that are used to evaluate theories as well as analogies. A review of these epistemic values and the kinds of synthesis connected to them shall illustrate two points. First, that the discussions about culture and evolution exhibit an epistemic bias towards synthesis, even if, as history shows, synthesis and well as isolation can be fruitful epistemic strategies in science. The paper thus contains some critical notes on the value of synthesis in science. Second, reviewing the kinds of synthesis and values involved allows for a new perspective on the analogies involved in theories of cultural evolution. It is a perspective that makes the criteria with which these theories are usually evaluated explicit. With this we can compare the different standpoints people have taken on the usefulness of theories of cultural evolution at a higher level. Differences arise because of different epistemic values assumed.|
|Keywords||cultural evolution epistemic values synthesis, unification, analogy|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Massimo Pigliucci (2007). Do We Need an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis? Evolution 61 (12):2743-2749.
William C. Wimsatt (2006). Generative Entrenchment and an Evolutionary Developmental Biology for Culture. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (4):364-366.
Massimo Pigliucci (ed.) (2010). Foreword to Julian Huxley's "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis&Quot;. MIT Press.
Tim Lewens (forthcoming). The Darwinian View of Culture. Biology and Philosophy.
Massimo Pigliucci (2005). Expanding Evolution. [REVIEW] Nature 435:565-566.
Ehud Lamm (2010). Review Of: Julian Huxley, Evolution: The Modern Synthesis – The Definitive Edition. [REVIEW] Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science.
Eva Jablonka (2006). Genes as Followers in Evolution – a Post-Synthesis Synthesis? Biology and Philosophy 21 (1):143-154.
Sahotra Sarkar (2004). Evolutionary Theory in the 1920s: The Nature of the “Synthesis”. Philosophy of Science 71 (5):1215-1226.
Sahotra Sarkar (2004). Evolutionary Theory in the 1920s: The Nature of the "Synthesis". Philosophy of Science 71 (5):1215-1226.
Massimo Pigliucci (2009). An Extended Synthesis for Evolutionary Biology. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 1168:218-228.
John R. Danley (2000). Philosophy, Science and Business Ethics: Frederick's New Normative Synthesis. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 26 (2):111 - 122.
Eva Jablonka & Ehud Lamm (2008). Integrating Evolution and Development: From Theory to Practice. [REVIEW] Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 51 (4):636-47.
Added to index2011-03-05
Total downloads39 ( #34,681 of 722,764 )
Recent downloads (6 months)13 ( #9,278 of 722,764 )
How can I increase my downloads?