David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Biology and Philosophy 1 (2):207-225 (1986)
Susan Mills and John Beatty proposed a propensity interpretation of fitness (1979) to show that Darwinian explanations are not circular, but they did not address the critics' chief complaint that the principle of the survival of the fittest is either tautological or untestable. I show that the propensity interpretation cannot rescue the principle from the critics' charges. The critics, however, incorrectly assume that there is nothing more to Darwin's theory than the survival of the fittest. While Darwinians all scoff at this assumption, they do not agree about what role, if any, this principle plays in Darwin's theory of natural selection. I argue that the principle has no place in Darwin's theory. His theory does include the idea that some organisms are fitter than others. But greater reproductive success is simply inferred from higher fitness. There is no reason to embody this inference in the form of a special principle of the survival of the fittest.
|Keywords||Fitness propensity tautology untestable semantic view of theories|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Robert N. Brandon (1980). A Structural Description of Evolutionary Theory. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:427 - 439.
P. J. den Boer (1999). Natural Selection or the Non-Survival of the Non-Fit. Acta Biotheoretica 47 (2).
Richmond Campbell & Jason Scott Robert (2005). The Structure of Evolution by Natural Selection. Biology and Philosophy 20 (4):673-696.
Bouchard Frédéric (2011). Darwinism Without Populations: A More Inclusive Understanding of the “Survival of the Fittest”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 42 (1):106-114.
Kerry Gordon (2004). On Survival of the Fittest and Other Corporate Myths. World Futures 60 (8):617 – 628.
Susan K. Mills & John H. Beatty (1979). The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness. Philosophy of Science 46 (2):263-286.
Abner Shimony (1989). The Non-Existence of a Principle of Natural Selection. Biology and Philosophy 4 (3):255-273.
Alfons Schuster & Yoko Yamaguchi (2009). The Survival of the Fittest and the Reign of the Most Robust: In Biology and Elsewhere. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 19 (3):361-389.
D. M. Walsh (2004). Bookkeeping or Metaphysics? The Units of Selection Debate. Synthese 138 (3):337 - 361.
David B. Resnik (1988). Survival of the Fittest: Law of Evolution or Law of Probability? [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 3 (3):349-362.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads18 ( #76,836 of 1,004,681 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,743 of 1,004,681 )
How can I increase my downloads?