David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15 (2):66-77 (2000)
Twenty years have passed since Gould and Lewontin published their critique of ‘the adaptationist program’ – the tendency of some evolutionary biologists to assume, rather than demonstrate, the operation of natural selection. After the ‘Spandrels paper’, evolutionists were more careful about producing just-so stories based on selection, and paid more attention to a panoply of other processes. Then came reactions against the excesses of the anti-adaptationist movement, which ranged from a complete dismissal of Gould and Lewontin’s contribution to a positive call to overcome the problems. We now have an excellent opportunity for finally affirming a more balanced and pluralistic approach to the study of evolutionary biology.
|Keywords||adaptationism spandrels evolutionary theory|
|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
Sharon Street (2006). A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value. Philosophical Studies 127 (1):109-166.
Massimo Pigliucci (2003). On the Relationship Between Science and Ethics. Zygon 38 (4):871-894.
S. Clough (2002). What is Menstruation For? On the Projectibility of Functional Predicates in Menstruation Research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 33 (4):719-732.
Werner Callebaut (2007). Herbert Simon's Silent Revolution. Biological Theory 2 (1):76-86.
Patrick Forber (2009). Introduction: A Primer on Adaptationism. Biology and Philosophy 24 (2):155-159.
Similar books and articles
Todd A. Grantham (2004). Constraints and Spandrels in Gould's Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Biology and Philosophy 19 (1):29-43.
Tim Lewens (2009). Seven Types of Adaptationism. Biology and Philosophy 24 (2):161-182.
S. J. Gould & R. C. Lewontin (1994). The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme. In E. Sober (ed.), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology. The MIT Press. Bradford Books 73-90.
James L. Dannemiller (2002). Lack of Evidentiary Criteria for Exaptations? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):512-513.
Alasdair I. Houston (2009). San Marco and Evolutionary Biology. Biology and Philosophy 24 (2):215-230.
Roger Sansom (2003). Constraining the Adaptationism Debate. Biology and Philosophy 18 (4):493-512.
Gillian Barker (2008). Biological Levers and Extended Adaptationism. Biology and Philosophy 23 (1):1-25.
Angela Potochnik (2009). Optimality Modeling in a Suboptimal World. Biology and Philosophy 24 (2):183-197.
Sahotra Sarkar (2005). Maynard Smith, Optimization, and Evolution. Biology and Philosophy 20 (5):951-966.
Jon F. Wilkins & Peter Godfrey-Smith (2009). Adaptationism and the Adaptive Landscape. Biology and Philosophy 24 (2):199-214.
Jeremy C. Ahouse (1998). The Tragedy of a Priori Selectionism: Dennett and Gould on Adaptationism. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 13 (3):359-391.
Matthew Rellihan (2012). Adaptationism and Adaptive Thinking in Evolutionary Psychology. Philosophical Psychology 25 (2):245-277.
John (2002). Ontology is the Problem. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):516-517.
Added to index2011-11-07
Total downloads626 ( #1,427 of 1,934,518 )
Recent downloads (6 months)105 ( #3,125 of 1,934,518 )
How can I increase my downloads?