David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Biology and Philosophy 26 (3):449-457 (2011)
Michael Ruse’s new anthology Philosophy After Darwin provides great history and background in the major impacts Darwinism has had on philosophy, especially in ethics and epistemology. This review focuses on epistemology understood through the lens of evolution by natural selection. I focus on one of Ruse’s own articles in the collection, which responds to two classic articles by Konrad Lorenz and David Hull on the two major forms of evolutionary epistemology. I side with Ruse against Lorenz’s account of the necessity we think our principles of reasoning have, though I disagree with Ruse’s particular example. I also argue that Ruse’s alternative explanation is lacking. Against Hull, I side with Ruse in his doubts that a sociobiological approach to science will prove fruitful, though I point out that it has certain advantages other approaches do not have. Although I side with Ruse on the issue, I conclude that the two views do not really come into direct conflict and so one needs not reject either. Finally, I discuss Ruse’s positive view and raise questions for his conception of evolutionary epistemology. I conclude that his arguments are insufficient to overcome opposing views and his view has at least as many unintuitive conclusions as the alternatives
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Michael Bradie (1986). Assessing Evolutionary Epistemology. Biology and Philosophy 1 (4):401-459.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Robert J. Richards (2004). Michael Ruse's Design for Living. Journal of the History of Biology 37 (1):25 - 38.
William Dembski, Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris.
Peter Woolcock (1993). Ruse's Darwinian Meta-Ethics: A Critique. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 8 (4):423-439.
William A. Rottschaefer & David Martinsen (1990). Really Taking Darwin Seriously: An Alternative to Michael Ruse's Darwinian Metaethics. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 5 (2):149-173.
Michael Ruse (1975). Book Review:Darwin and His Critics: The Reception of Darwin's Theory of Evolution by the Scientific Community David Hull. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 42 (3):338-.
Michael Ruse (ed.) (2009). Philosophy After Darwin: Classic and Contemporary Readings. Princeton University Press.
Bruce N. Waller (1996). Moral Commitment Without Objectivity or Illusion: Comments on Ruse and Woolcock. Biology and Philosophy 11 (2):245-254.
David L. Hull (2001). Michael Ruse and His Fifteen Years of Booknotes – for Better or for Worse. Biology and Philosophy 16 (3):423-435.
John Lemos (2001). A Defense of Darwinian Accounts of Morality. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 31 (3):361-385.
J. Wesley Robbins (1995). If Our Genes Are for Us, Who Can Be Against Us? Thoughts of a Pragmatist on Science and Morality. Zygon 30 (3):357-367.
Alexander Rosenberg (1980). Ruse's Treatment of the Evidence for Evolution: A Reconsideration. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:83 - 93.
John Mizzoni (1998). Evolutionary Ethics: A Crack in the Foundation of Ethics? Theoretical Ethics.
David Wisdo (2011). Michael Ruse on Science and Faith: Seeking Mutual Understanding. Zygon 46 (3):639-654.
Added to index2010-11-18
Total downloads25 ( #100,853 of 1,696,589 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #345,974 of 1,696,589 )
How can I increase my downloads?