David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Acta Biotheoretica 45 (2):117-126 (1997)
In an important article, Kim Sterelny and Philip Kitcher challenge the common assumption that for any biological phenomenon requiring a selectionist explanation, it is possible to identify a uniquely correct account of the relevant selection process. They argue that selection events can be modeled in any of a number of different, equally correct ways. They call their view ' Pluralism,' and explicitly connect it with various antirealist positions in the philosophy of science. I critically evaluate Sterelny and Kitcher's Pluralism along with its attendant antirealist theses. In particular, I argue that there are serious problems with their pluralistic antirealism regarding units of selection. By correctly diagnosing these problems a more adequate position can be constructed. I defend such a position, which I designate Inclusive Hierarchical Monism, and show how it captures the important virtues of Sterelny and Kitcher's approach while avoiding its problems
|Keywords||Philosophy Philosophy of Biology Evolutionary Biology|
|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
Ayelet Shavit (2004). Shifting Values Partly Explain the Debate Over Group Selection. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 35 (4):697-720.
Ayelet Shavit (2004). Shifting Values Partly Explain the Debate Over Group Selection. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 35 (4):697-720.
Similar books and articles
Sandra D. Mitchell (1987). Competing Units of Selection?: A Case of Symbiosis. Philosophy of Science 54 (3):351-367.
Elisabeth A. Lloyd (1989). A Structural Approach to Defining Units of Selection. Philosophy of Science 56 (3):395-418.
Bruce Glymour (1999). Population Level Causation and a Unified Theory of Natural Selection. Biology and Philosophy 14 (4):521-536.
Robert N. Brandon (1999). The Units of Selection Revisited: The Modules of Selection. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 14 (2):167-180.
Robert Brandon (1982). The Levels of Selection. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:315 - 323.
Robert A. Wilson (2003). Pluralism, Entwinement, and the Levels of Selection. Philosophy of Science 70 (3):531-552.
Robert N. Brandon & H. Frederik Nijhout (2006). The Empirical Nonequivalence of Genic and Genotypic Models of Selection: A (Decisive) Refutation of Genic Selectionism and Pluralistic Genic Selectionism. Philosophy of Science 73 (3):277-297.
Timothy Shanahan (1990). Evolution, Phenotypic Selection, and the Units of Selection. Philosophy of Science 57 (2):210-225.
David Walton (1991). The Units of Selection and the Bases of Selection. Philosophy of Science 58 (3):417-435.
Elisabeth A. Lloyd (2005). Why the Gene Will Not Return. Philosophy of Science 72 (2):287-310.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads19 ( #206,524 of 1,934,708 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #269,464 of 1,934,708 )
How can I increase my downloads?