British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (2):425-448 (2006)
|Abstract||According to Aristotelian essentialism, the nature of an organism is constituted of a particular goal-directed disposition to produce an organism typical of its kind. This paper argues—against the prevailing orthodoxy—that essentialism of this sort is indispensable to evolutionary biology. The most powerful anti-essentialist arguments purport to show that the natures of organisms play no explanatory role in modern synthesis biology. I argue that recent evolutionary developmental biology provides compelling evidence to the contrary. Developmental biology shows that one must appeal to the capacities of organisms to explain what makes adaptive evolution adaptive. Moreover, the specific capacities in question are precisely those that, according to Aristotle, constitute the nature of an organism. Essentialism 1.1 Aristotelian biological kinds Evolutionary anti-essentialism 2.1 Taxonomic anti-essentialism 2.2 Explanatory anti-essentialism Adaptation 3.1 Stability 3.2 Mutability 3.3 Phenotypic plasticity and adaptive evolution The natures of organisms Conclusion.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
David S. Oderberg (2007). Real Essentialism. Routledge.
John S. Wilkins (2010). What is a Species? Essences and Generation. Theory in Biosciences 129:141-148.
Elliott Sober (1994). From a Biological Point of View: Essays in Evolutionary Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Lauren Tillinghast (2004). Essence and Anti-Essentialism About Art. British Journal of Aesthetics 44 (2):167-183.
D. M. Walsh (2006). Organisms as Natural Purposes: The Contemporary Evolutionary Perspective. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 37 (4):771-791.
Charlotte Witt (forthcoming). What Is Gender Essentialism? Feminist Metaphysics:11--25.
Elliott Sober (1980). Evolution, Population Thinking, and Essentialism. Philosophy of Science 47 (3):350-383.
S. Marc Cohen (1978). Essentialism in Aristotle. Review of Metaphysics 31 (3):387-405.
Marc Ereshefsky (2010). What's Wrong with the New Biological Essentialism. Philosophy of Science 77 (5):674-685.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads77 ( #10,343 of 548,984 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #19,181 of 548,984 )
How can I increase my downloads?