David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theoria 18 (3):259-272 (2003)
The so-called evolutionary social scienccs are based on the belief that Darwinism can explain the living world and that it therefore should be able to explain other complex systems such as minds and societies. In fact, Darwinism cannot explain biological evolution. It does make an important contribution, but this is towards understanding adaptation, which is a major problem in biology but not in the social sciences. Darwinism has much less to offer to the social sciences than to biology and the shortcomings it brings with it are much greater
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Richard R. Nelson (2007). Universal Darwinism and Evolutionary Social Science. Biology and Philosophy 22 (1):73-94.
Geoffrey M. Hodgson (2004). Darwinism, Causality and the Social Sciences. Journal of Economic Methodology 11 (2):175-194.
Colin A. Hendrie & Alasdair R. Pickles (2012). Depression : An Evolutionary Adaptation Organised Around the Third Ventricle. In Martin H. Brinkworth & Friedel Weinert (eds.), Evolution 2.0: Implications of Darwinism in Philosophy and the Social and Natural Sciences. Springer
Christopher Nichols (1974). Review Symposium : Darwinism and the Social Sciences. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 4 (2):255-277.
H. E. Smit (1992). Book Reviews : Howard L. Kaye, The Social Meaning of Modern Biology: From Social Darwinism to Sociobiology. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT,1986. Pp. 184, $9.95 (Paper. [REVIEW] Philosophy of the Social Sciences 22 (4):531-534.
A. J. Wells (1999). Rose's Homeodynamic Perspective is Not an Alternative to Neo-Darwinism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):911-912.
Alex Rosenberg (2005). Lessons From Biology for Philosophy of the Human Sciences. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 35 (1):3-19.
Michael Ruse (2010). The Biological Sciences Can Act as a Ground for Ethics. In Francisco José Ayala & Robert Arp (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Biology. Wiley-Blackwell Pub.
Christine Clavien (forthcoming). Evolution, Society, and Ethics: Social Darwinism Versus Evolutionary Ethics. In Thomas Heams (ed.), Handbook of Evolutionary Biology (provis. Title). Springer
Davide Vecchi (2012). Taking Biology Seriously : Neo-Darwinism and its Many Challenges. In Martin H. Brinkworth & Friedel Weinert (eds.), Evolution 2.0: Implications of Darwinism in Philosophy and the Social and Natural Sciences. Springer
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads40 ( #110,604 of 1,938,720 )
Recent downloads (6 months)12 ( #45,544 of 1,938,720 )
How can I increase my downloads?