David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 54 (3):351-367 (1987)
The controversy regarding the unit of selection is fundamentally a dispute about what is the correct causal structure of the process of evolution by natural selection and its ontological commitments. By characterizing the process as consisting of two essential steps--interaction and transmission--a singular answer to the unit question becomes ambiguous. With such an account on hand, two recent defenses of competing units of selection are considered. Richard Dawkins maintains that the gene is the appropriate unit of selection and Robert Brandon, in response, argues that the individual organism is better suited to the role. This paper argues that by making explicit the underlying questions that each of these views addresses, the apparent conflict can be resolved. Furthermore, such a resolution allows for a more complete and realistic understanding of the process of evolution by natural selection
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Timothy D. Johnston (1988). Developmental Explanation and the Ontogeny of Birdsong: Nature/Nurture Redux. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11 (4):617.
David Sloan Wilson & Elliott Sober (1994). Reintroducing Group Selection to the Human Behavioral Sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17 (4):585.
John Alcock (1988). Singing Down a Blind Alley. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11 (4):630.
Paul C. Mundinger (1988). Conceptual Errors, Different Perspectives, and Genetic Analysis of Song Ontogeny. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11 (4):643.
Marc Bekoff (1988). Birdsong and the “Problem” of Nature and Nurture: Endless Chirping About Inadequate Evidence or Merely Singing the Blues About Inevitable Biases in, and Limitations of, Human Inference? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11 (4):631.
Similar books and articles
John Cassidy (1981). Ambiguities and Pragmatic Factors in the Units of Selection Controversy. Philosophy of Science 48 (1):95-111.
Elisabeth A. Lloyd (1989). A Structural Approach to Defining Units of Selection. Philosophy of Science 56 (3):395-418.
Robert Brandon (1982). The Levels of Selection. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:315 - 323.
Robert N. Brandon (1999). The Units of Selection Revisited: The Modules of Selection. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 14 (2):167-180.
Harmon R. Holcomb Iii (1986). Causes, Ends, and the Units of Selection. Philosophy Research Archives 12:519-539.
David Walton (1991). The Units of Selection and the Bases of Selection. Philosophy of Science 58 (3):417-435.
Sahotra Sarkar (1994). The Selection of Alleles and the Additivity of Variance. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:3 - 12.
Peter Godfrey-Smith (1992). Additivity and the Units of Selection. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:315 - 328.
D. M. Walsh (2004). Bookkeeping or Metaphysics? The Units of Selection Debate. Synthese 138 (3):337 - 361.
Timothy Shanahan (1990). Evolution, Phenotypic Selection, and the Units of Selection. Philosophy of Science 57 (2):210-225.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads20 ( #181,364 of 1,792,244 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #282,315 of 1,792,244 )
How can I increase my downloads?