Explaining evolutionary innovations and novelties: Criteria of explanatory adequacy and epistemological prerequisites
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 75 (5):874-886 (2008)
It is a common complaint that antireductionist arguments are primarily negative. Here I describe an alternative nonreductionist epistemology based on considerations taken from multidisciplinary research in biology. The core of this framework consists in seeing investigation as coordinated around sets of problems (problem agendas) that have associated criteria of explanatory adequacy. These ideas are developed in a case study, the explanation of evolutionary innovations and novelties, which demonstrates the applicability and fruitfulness of this nonreductionist epistemological perspective. This account also bears on questions of conceptual change and theory structure in philosophy of science. †To contact the author, please write to: Department of Philosophy, University of Minnesota, 831 Heller Hall, 271 19th Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 55455; e‐mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Ingo Brigandt (2010). Beyond Reduction and Pluralism: Toward an Epistemology of Explanatory Integration in Biology. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 73 (3):295-311.
Adrian Currie (2012). Reports From the High Table. Biology and Philosophy 27 (1):149-158.
Anya Plutynski (2013). Cancer and the Goals of Integration. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C (4):466-476.
Elihu M. Gerson (2013). Integration of Specialties: An Institutional and Organizational View. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (4):515-524.
Ingo Brigandt (2013). Integration in Biology: Philosophical Perspectives on the Dynamics of Interdisciplinarity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (4):461-465.
Similar books and articles
Jonathan Kaplan (2008). Evolutionary Innovations and Developmental Resources: From Stability to Variation and Back Again. Philosophy of Science 75 (5):861-873.
Alan Love (2012). The Allure of Perennial Questions in Biology: Temporary Excitement or Substantive Advance? [REVIEW] Metascience 21 (1):167-170.
C. Kenneth Waters (2008). How Practical Know‐How Contextualizes Theoretical Knowledge: Exporting Causal Knowledge From Laboratory to Nature. Philosophy of Science 75 (5):707-719.
Alan C. Love (2012). Formal and Material Theories in Philosophy of Science: A Methodological Interpretation. In. In Henk W. de Regt (ed.), Epsa Philosophy of Science: Amsterdam 2009. Springer. 175--185.
Jaakko Kuorikoski & Petri Ylikoski (2010). Explanatory Relevance Across Disciplinary Boundaries: The Case of Neuroeconomics. Journal of Economic Methodology 17 (2):219–228.
Ulrich Krohs (2005). The Conceptual Basis of a Biological Dispute About the Temporal Order of Evolutionary Events. In Friedrich Stadler & Michael Stölzner (eds.), Time and History. Papers of the 28th International Wittgenstein Symposium. Österr. Ludwig-Wittgenstein-Gesellschaft.
Michael Bradie (1983). Recent Work on Criteria for Event Identity, 1967-1979. Philosophy Research Archives 9:29-77.
Ann E. Cudd (2005). How to Explain Oppression: Criteria of Adequacy for Normative Explanatory Theories. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 35 (1):20-49.
Massimo Pigliucci (2008). What, If Anything, is an Evolutionary Novelty? Philosophy of Science 75 (5):887-898.
Added to index2009-03-14
Total downloads36 ( #40,431 of 1,088,810 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,661 of 1,088,810 )
How can I increase my downloads?