Search results for 'Adaptationism' (try it on Scholar)

171 found
Sort by:
See also:
  1. Massimo Pigliucci & Jonathan Kaplan (2000). The Fall and Rise of Dr. Pangloss: Adaptationism and the Spandrels Paper 20 Years Later. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15 (2):66-77.score: 18.0
    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 (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. S. Okasha (2003). Fodor on Cognition, Modularity, and Adaptationism. Philosophy of Science 70 (1):68-88.score: 18.0
    This paper critically examines Jerry Fodor's latest attacks on evolutionary psychology. Contra Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, Fodor argues (i) there is no reason to think that human cognition is a Darwinian adaptation in the first place, and (ii) there is no valid inference from adaptationism about the mind to massive modularity. However, Fodor maintains (iii) that there is a valid inference in the converse direction, from modularity to adaptationism, but (iv) that the language module is an exception (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Matthew Rellihan (2012). Adaptationism and Adaptive Thinking in Evolutionary Psychology. Philosophical Psychology 25 (2):245-277.score: 18.0
    Evolutionary psychologists attempt to infer our evolved psychology from the selection pressures present in our ancestral environments. Their use of this inference strategy?often called ?adaptive thinking??is thought to be justified by way of appeal to a rather modest form of adaptationism, according to which the mind's adaptive complexity reveals it to be a product of selection. I argue, on the contrary, that the mind's being an adaptation is only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for the validity of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Scott Atran (2005). Adaptationism for Human Cognition: Strong, Spurious, or Weak? Mind and Language 20 (1):39-67.score: 18.0
    Strong adaptationists explore complex organic design as taskspecific adaptations to ancestral environments. This strategy seems best when there is evidence of homology. Weak adaptationists don't assume that complex organic (including cognitive and linguistic) functioning necessarily or primarily represents taskspecific adaptation. This approach to cognition resembles physicists' attempts to deductively explain the most facts with fewest hypotheses. For certain domainspecific competencies (folkbiology) strong adaptationism is useful but not necessary to research. With grouplevel belief systems (religion) strong adaptationism degenerates into (...)
    Direct download (15 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Tim Lewens (2002). Adaptationism and Engineering. Biology and Philosophy 17 (1):1-31.score: 18.0
    The rights and wrongs of adaptationism areoften discussed by appeal to what I call theartefact model. Anti-adaptationistscomplain that the use of optimality modelling,reverse engineering and other techniques areindicative of a mistaken and outmoded beliefthat organisms are like well-designedartefacts. Adaptationists (e.g. Dennett 1995)respond with the assertion that viewingorganisms as though they were well designed isa fruitful, perhaps necessary research strategyin evolutionary biology. Anti-adaptationistsare right when they say that techniques likereverse engineering are liable to mislead. This fact does not undermine the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Sean A. Valles (2012). Evolutionary Medicine at Twenty: Rethinking Adaptationism and Disease. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 27 (2):241-261.score: 18.0
    Two decades ago, the eminent evolutionary biologist George C. Williams and his physician coauthor, Randolph Nesse, formulated the evolutionary medicine research program. Williams and Nesse explicitly made adaptationism a core component of the new program, which has served to undermine the program ever since, distorting its practitioners’ perceptions of evidentiary burdens and in extreme cases has served to warp practitioner’s understandings of the relationship between evolutionary benefits/detriments and medical ones. I show that the Williams and Nesse program more particularly (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Roger Sansom (2003). Constraining the Adaptationism Debate. Biology and Philosophy 18 (4):493-512.score: 18.0
    This contribution to the adaptationism debate elaborates the nature of constraints and their importance in evolutionary explanation and argues that the adaptationism debate should be limited to the issue of how to privilege causes in evolutionary explanation. I argue that adaptationist explanations are deeply conceptually dependent on developmental constraints, and explanations that appeal to constraints are dependant on the results of natural selection. I suggest these explanations should be integrated into the framework of historical causal explanation. Each strategy (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. David Resnik (1996). Adaptationism: Hypothesis or Heuristic? [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 12 (1):39-50.score: 18.0
    Elliott Sober (1987, 1993) and Orzack and Sober (forthcoming) argue that adaptationism is a very general hypothesis that can be tested by testing various particular hypotheses that invoke natural selection to explain the presence of traits in populations of organisms. In this paper, I challenge Sobers claim that adaptationism is an hypothesis and I argue that it is best viewed as a heuristic (or research strategy). Biologists would still have good reasons for employing this research strategy even if (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Scott Atran (2005). Strong Versus Weak Adaptationism in Cognition and Language. In Peter Carruthers, Stephen Laurence & Stephen Stich (eds.), The Innate Mind: Structure and Contents. New York: Oxford University Press New York.score: 15.0
  10. Tim Lewens (2009). Seven Types of Adaptationism. Biology and Philosophy 24 (2):161-182.score: 12.0
    Godfrey-Smith ( 2001 ) has distinguished three types of adaptationism. This article builds on his analysis, and revises it in places, by distinguishing seven varieties of adaptationism. This taxonomy allows us to clarify what is at stake in debates over adaptationism, and it also helps to cement the importance of Gould and Lewontin’s ‘Spandrels’ essay. Some adaptationists have suggested that their essay does not offer any coherent alternative to the adaptationist programme: it consists only in an exhortation (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Ron Amundson (1994). Two Concepts of Constraint: Adaptationism and the Challenge From Developmental Biology. Philosophy of Science 61 (4):556-578.score: 12.0
    The so-called "adaptationism" of mainstream evolutionary biology has been criticized from a variety of sources. One, which has received relatively little philosophical attention, is developmental biology. Developmental constraints are said to be neglected by adaptationists. This paper explores the divergent methodological and explanatory interests that separate mainstream evolutionary biology from its embryological and developmental critics. It will focus on the concept of constraint itself; even this central concept is understood differently by the two sides of the dispute.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Gillian Barker (2008). Biological Levers and Extended Adaptationism. Biology and Philosophy 23 (1):1-25.score: 12.0
    Two critiques of simple adaptationism are distinguished: anti-adaptationism and extended adaptationism. Adaptationists and anti-adaptationists share the presumption that an evolutionary explanation should identify the dominant simple cause of the evolutionary outcome to be explained. A consideration of extended-adaptationist models such as coevolution, niche construction and extended phenotypes reveals the inappropriateness of this presumption in explaining the evolution of certain important kinds of features—those that play particular roles in the regulation of organic processes, especially behavior. These biological or (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Peter Godfrey-Smith, Three Kinds of Adaptationism.score: 12.0
    Debate about adaptationism in biology continues, in part because within “the” problem of assessing adaptationism, three distinct problems are mixed together. The three problems concern the assessment of three distinct adaptationist positions, each of which asserts the central importance of adaptation and natural selection to the study of evolution, but conceives this importance in a different way. As there are three kinds of adaptationism, there are three distinct "anti-adaptationist" positions as well. Or putting it more formally, there (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Jon F. Wilkins & Peter Godfrey-Smith (2009). Adaptationism and the Adaptive Landscape. Biology and Philosophy 24 (2):199-214.score: 12.0
    Debates over adaptationism can be clarified and partially resolved by careful consideration of the ‘grain’ at which evolutionary processes are described. The framework of ‘adaptive landscapes’ can be used to illustrate and facilitate this investigation. We argue that natural selection may have special status at an intermediate grain of analysis of evolutionary processes. The cases of sickle-cell disease and genomic imprinting are used as case studies.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Eric Reuland (2008). On Language and Evolution: Why Neo-Adaptationism Fails. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (5):531-532.score: 12.0
    I identify a number of problematic aspects of Christiansen & Chater's (C&C's) contribution. These include their suggestion that subjacency and binding reflect non-domain-specific mechanisms; that proto-language is a ; and that non-adaptationism requires overly rich innate structures, and is incompatible with acceptable evolutionary processes. It shows that a fully UG (Universal Grammar)-free version of the authors' neo-adaptationism would be incoherent.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Brian Haig & Russil Durrant (2002). Adaptationism and Inference to the Best Explanation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):520-521.score: 12.0
    Andrews et al. effectively argue that, despite prominent criticism, adaptationism can be a viable research strategy. We agree. In our complementary commentary, we discuss the neglected method of inference to the best explanation and argue that it is a valuable addition to the adaptationist's methodological practice.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Shunkichi Matsumoto (2008). The Nature of Adaptationism. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 43:121-127.score: 12.0
    In this paper, I will take advantage of the controversy on the legitimacy of adaptationism in evolutionary biology to further investigate the nature of adaptationistic thinking, or biological explanations in general. To this end, first I will look at the famous and provocative criticism made by Gould and Lewontin (1979) against then-prevalent adaptationism --- a research strategy for accounting for the origin of traits of organisms seemingly adapted to the environment by appealing primarily to natural selection. Then I (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Chandra Sekhar Sripada (2008). Adaptationism, Culture, and the Malleability of Human Nature. In Peter Caruthers, Stephen Laurence & Stephen Stich (eds.), The Innate Mind, Volume 3. Oxford University Press.score: 12.0
    It is often thought that if an adaptationist explanation of some behavioural phenomenon is true, then this fact shows that a culturist explanation of the very same phenomenon is false, or else the adaptationist explanation preempts or crowds out the culturist explanation in some way. This chapter shows why this so-called competition thesis is misguided. Two evolutionary models are identified — the Information Learning Model and the Strategic Learning Model — which show that adaptationist reasoning can help explain why cultural (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Paul W. Andrews, Steven W. Gangestad & Dan Matthews (2002). Adaptationism, Exaptationism, and Evolutionary Behavioral Science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):534-547.score: 12.0
    In our target article, we discussed the standards of evidence that could be used to identify adaptations, and argued that building an empirical case that certain features of a trait are best explained by exaptation, spandrel, or constraint requires the consideration, testing, and rejection of adaptationist hypotheses. We are grateful to the 31 commentators for their thoughtful insights. They raised important issues, including the meaning of “exaptation”; whether Gould and Lewontin's critique of adaptationism was primarily epistemological or ontological; the (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Paul W. Andrews, Steven W. Gangestad & Dan Matthews (2002). Adaptationism – How to Carry Out an Exaptationist Program. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):489-504.score: 12.0
    1 Adaptationism is a research strategy that seeks to identify adaptations and the specific selective forces that drove their evolution in past environments. Since the mid-1970s, paleontologist Stephen J. Gould and geneticist Richard Lewontin have been critical of adaptationism, especially as applied toward understanding human behavior and cognition. Perhaps the most prominent criticism they made was that adaptationist explanations were analogous to Rudyard Kipling's Just So Stories (outlandish explanations for questions such as how the elephant got its trunk). (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Russil Durrant & Brian D. Haig (2001). How to Pursue the Adaptationist Program in Psychology. Philosophical Psychology 14 (4):357 – 380.score: 12.0
    In recent times evolutionary psychologists have offered adaptation explanations for a wide range of human psychological characteristics. Critics, however, have argued that such endeavors are problematic because the appropriate evidence required to demonstrate adaptation is unlikely to be forthcoming, therefore severely limiting the role of the adaptationist program in psychology. More specifically, doubts have been raised over both the methodology employed by evolutionary psychologists for studying adaptations and about the possibility of ever developing acceptably rigorous evolutionary explanations of human psychological (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Judith A. Easton, Lucas D. Schipper & Todd K. Shackelford (2006). Why the Adaptationist Perspective Must Be Considered: The Example of Morbid Jealousy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (4):411-412.score: 12.0
    We describe delusional disorder–jealous type (“morbid jealousy”) with the adaptationist perspective used by Darwinian psychiatrists and evolutionary psychologists to explain the relatively common existence and continued prevalence of mental disorders. We then apply the “harmful dysfunction” analysis to morbid jealousy, including a discussion of this disorder as (1) an end on a continuum of normal jealousy or (2) a discrete entity. (Published Online November 9 2006).
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Alfonso Troisi (2006). Adaptationism and Medicalization: The Scylla and Charybdis of Darwinian Psychiatry. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (4):422-423.score: 12.0
    The target article shows that the application of the evolutionary theory to psychopathology should not necessarily consist in finding hidden adaptive benefits for each psychiatric syndrome. However, in rejecting lax adaptationism, Darwinian psychiatrists should not forget that the search for adaptive behavioral polymorphisms can be a powerful antidote against the normative attitude of mainstream psychiatry and its growing tendency to medicalize human diversity. (Published Online November 9 2006).
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Jonathan Kaplan (2008). Economic Rationality and Explaining Human Behavior: An Adaptationist Program? International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences 3 (7):79-94.score: 12.0
    Attempts to explain human behavior that appeal to economic rationality share many of the same ontological as- sumptions and methodological practices that the so-called ‘adaptationist program’ in biology was criticized for. This program in biology was largely abandoned by biologists as poorly motivated, and replaced with the active testing of both adaptive and non-adaptive hypotheses regarding the spread and maintenance of traits in populations. This development was largely welcome by the biological <span class='Hi'>community</span>, despite having required the development of new (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Michael E. Price, William M. Brown & Oliver S. Curry (2007). The Integrative Framework for the Behavioural Sciences has Already Been Discovered, and It is the Adaptationist Approach. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30 (1):39-40.score: 12.0
    The adaptationist framework is necessary and sufficient for unifying the social and natural sciences. Gintis's “beliefs, preferences, and constraints” (BPC) model compares unfavorably to this framework because it lacks criteria for determining special design, incorrectly assumes that standard evolutionary theory predicts individual rationality maximisation, does not adequately recognize the impact of psychological mechanisms on culture, and is mute on the behavioural implications of intragenomic conflict. (Published Online April 27 2007).
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Scott Atran (2002). Modest Adaptationism: Muddling Through Cognition and Language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):504-506.score: 12.0
    Strong adaptationists would explain complex organic designs as specific adaptations to particular ancestral environments. Weak adaptationists don't assume that complex organic functioning represents evolutionary design in the sense of niche-specific adaptation. For some domain-specific competencies (folkbiology) strong adaptationism is useful, not necessary. With group-level belief systems (religion), strong adaptationism can become spurious pseudo-adaptationism. In other cases (language), weak adaptationism proves productive.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Sahotra Sarkar (forthcoming). The Genomic Challenge to Adaptationism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axu002.score: 12.0
    Since the late 1990s, the characterization of complete DNA sequences for a large and taxonomically diverse set of species has continued to gain in speed and accuracy. Sequence analyses have indicated a strikingly baroque structure for most eukaryotic genomes, with multiple repeats of DNA sequences and with very little of the DNA specifying proteins. Much of the DNA in these genomes has no known function. These results have generated strong interest in the factors that govern the evolution of genome architecture. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Wim J. Steen (1983). Methodological Problems in Evolutionary Biology II. Appraisal of Arguments Against Adaptationism. Acta Biotheoretica 32 (3).score: 12.0
    Methodological analysis shows that the concepts of fitness and adaptation are more complex than the literature suggests. Various arguments against adaptationism are inadequate since they are couched in terms of unduly simplistic notions.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Thomas E. Dickins & David W. Dickins (2002). Is Empirical Imagination a Constraint on Adaptationist Theory Construction? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):515-516.score: 12.0
    Andrews et al. present a form of instrumental adaptationism that is designed to test the hypothesis that a given trait is an adaptation. This epistemological commitment aims to make clear statements about behavioural natural kinds. The instrumental logic is sound, but it is the limits of our empirical imagination that can cause problems for theory construction.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. James Swanson, Robert Moyzis, John Fossella, Jin Fan & Michael I. Posner (2002). Adaptationism and Molecular Biology: An Example Based on ADHD. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):530-531.score: 12.0
    Rather than starting with traits and speculating whether selective forces drove evolution in past environments, we propose starting with a candidate gene associated with a trait and testing first for patterns of selection at the DNA level. This can provide limitations on the number of traits to be evaluated subsequently by adaptationism as described by Andrews et al.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Andre Ariew (2003). Natural Selection Doesn't Work That Way: Jerry Fodor Vs. Evolutionary Psychology on Gradualism and Saltationism. Mind and Language 18 (5):478-483.score: 9.0
    In Chapter Five of The Mind Doesn’t Work That Way, Jerry Fodor argues that since it is likely that human minds evolved quickly as saltations rather than gradually as the product of an accumulation of small mutations, evolutionary psychologists are wrong to think that human minds are adaptations. I argue that Fodor’s requirement that adaptationism entails gradualism is wrongheaded. So, while evolutionary psychologists may be wrong to endorse gradualism—and I argue that they are wrong—it does not follow that they (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Yingjin Xu (2011). What Does Fodor's “Anti-Darwinism” Mean to Natural Theology? Frontiers of Philosophy in China 6 (3):465-479.score: 9.0
    In the current dialogue of “science and religion,” it is widely assumed that the thoughts of Darwinists and that of atheists overlap. However, Jerry Fodor, a full-fledged atheist, recently announced a war against Darwinism with his atheistic campaign. Prima facie, this “civil war” might offer a chance for theists: If Fodor is right, Darwinistic atheism will lose the cover of Darwinism and become less tenable. This paper provides a more pessimistic evaluation of the situation by explaining the following: Fodor’s criticism (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Jonathan Birch (2012). Robust Processes and Teleological Language. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 3 (3):299-312.score: 9.0
    I consider some hitherto unexplored examples of teleological language in the sciences. In explicating these examples, I aim to show (a) that such language is not the sole preserve of the biological sciences, and (b) that not all such talk is reducible to the ascription of functions. In chemistry and biochemistry, scientists explaining molecular rearrangements and protein folding talk informally of molecules rearranging “in order to” maximize stability. Evolutionary biologists, meanwhile, often speak of traits evolving “in order to” optimize some (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Kim Sterelny (1996). Explanatory Pluralism in Evolutionary Biology. Biology and Philosophy 11 (2):193-214.score: 9.0
    The ontological dependence of one domain on another is compatible with the explanatory autonomy of the less basic domain. That autonomy results from the fact that the relationship between two domains can be very complex. In this paper I distinguish two different types of complexity, two ways the relationship between domains can fail to be transparent, both of which are relevant to evolutionary biology. Sometimes high level explanations preserve a certain type of causal or counterfactual information which would be lost (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Jeremy C. Ahouse (1998). The Tragedy of a Priori Selectionism: Dennett and Gould on Adaptationism. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 13 (3):359-391.score: 9.0
    In his recent book on Darwinism, Daniel Dennett has offered up a species of a priori selectionism that he calls algorithmic. He used this view to challenge a number of positions advocated by Stephen J. Gould. I examine his algorithmic conception, review his unqualified enthusiasm for the a priori selectionist position, challenge Dennett's main metaphors (cranes vs. skyhooks and a design space), examine ways in which his position has lead him to misunderstand or misrepresent Gould (spandrels, exaptation, punctuated equilibrium, contingency (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Simon M. Huttegger (2010). Generic Properties of Evolutionary Games and Adaptationism. Journal of Philosophy 107 (2):80-102.score: 9.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Kenneth J. Sufka & Derek D. Turner (2005). An Evolutionary Account of Chronic Pain: Integrating the Natural Method in Evolutionary Psychology. Philosophical Psychology 18 (2):243-257.score: 9.0
    This paper offers an evolutionary account of chronic pain. Chronic pain is a maladaptive by-product of pain mechanisms and neural plasticity, both of which are highly adaptive. This account shows how evolutionary psychology can be integrated with Flanagan's natural method, and in a way that avoids the usual charges of panglossian adaptationism and an uncritical commitment to a modular picture of the mind. Evolutionary psychology is most promising when it adopts a bottom-up research strategy that focuses on basic affective (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Christopher Lang, Elliott Sober & Karen Strier (2002). Are Human Beings Part of the Rest of Nature? Biology and Philosophy 17 (5):661-671.score: 9.0
    Unified explanations seek to situate the traits of human beings in a causal framework that also explains the trait values found in nonhuman species. Disunified explanations claim that the traits of human beings are due to causal processes not at work in the rest of nature. This paper outlines a methodology for testing hypotheses of these two types. Implications are drawn concerning evolutionary psychology, adaptationism, and anti-adaptationism.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Patrick Forber (2009). Introduction: A Primer on Adaptationism. Biology and Philosophy 24 (2):155-159.score: 9.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Peter Godfrey-Smith (1999). Adaptationism and the Power of Selection. Biology and Philosophy 14 (2):181-194.score: 9.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Jean-Sébastien Bolduc & Frank Cézilly (2012). Optimality Modelling in the Real World. Biology and Philosophy 27 (6):851-869.score: 9.0
    In a recent paper, Potochnik (Biol Philos 24(2):183–197, 2009) analyses some uses of optimality modelling in light of the anti-adaptationism criticism. She distinguishes two broad classes of such uses (weak and strong) on the basis of assumptions held by biologists about the role and the importance of natural selection. This is an interesting proposal that could help in the epistemological characterisation of some biological practices. However, Potochnik’s distinction also rests on the assumption that all optimality modelling represent the selection (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Todd A. Grantham (2004). Constraints and Spandrels in Gould's Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Biology and Philosophy 19 (1):29-43.score: 9.0
    Gould's Structure ofEvolutionary Theory argues that Darwinism hasundergone significant revision. Although Gouldsucceeds in showing that hierarchicalapproaches have expanded Darwinism, hiscritique of adaptationism is less successful. Gould claims that the ubiquity of developmentalconstraints and spandrels has forced biologiststo soften their commitment to adaptationism. Iargue that Gould overstates his conclusion; hisprincipal claims are compatible with at leastsome versions of adaptationism. Despite thisweakness, Gould's discussion of adaptationism –particularly his discussions of the exaptivepool and cross-level spandrels – shouldprovoke new work (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Matthew C. Keller & Geoffrey Miller (2006). An Evolutionary Framework for Mental Disorders: Integrating Adaptationist and Evolutionary Genetic Models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (4):429-441.score: 9.0
    This response (a) integrates non-equilibrium evolutionary genetic models, such as coevolutionary arms-races and recent selective sweeps, into a framework for understanding common, harmful, heritable mental disorders; (b) discusses the forms of ancestral neutrality or balancing selection that may explain some portion of mental disorder risk; and (c) emphasizes that normally functioning psychological adaptations work against a backdrop of mutational and environmental noise. (Published Online November 9 2006).
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Robert C. Richardson (2003). Adaptationism, Adaptation, and Optimality. Biology and Philosophy 18 (5):695-713.score: 9.0
  45. Aurelio José Figueredo, Mark J. Landau & Jon A. Sefcek (2004). Apes and Angels: Adaptationism Versus Panglossianism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (3):334-335.score: 9.0
    The “straw man” prior expectation of the dominant social psychology paradigm is that humans should behave with perfect rationality and high ethical standards. The more modest claim of evolutionary psychologists is that humans have evolved specific adaptations for adaptive problems that were reliably present in the ancestral environment. Outside that restricted range of problems, one should not expect optimal behavior.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Roberta L. Millstein (2007). Hsp90-Induced Evolution: Adaptationist, Neutralist, and Developmentalist Scenarios. Biological Theory: Integrating Development, Evolution and Cognition 2 (4):376-386.score: 9.0
    Recent work on the heat-shock protein Hsp90 by Rutherford and Lindquist (1998) has been included among the pieces of evidence taken to show the essential role of developmental processes in evolution; Hsp90 acts as a buffer against phenotypic variation, allowing genotypic variation to build. When the buffering capacity of Hsp90 is altered (e.g., in nature, by mutation or environmental stress), the genetic variation is "revealed," manifesting itself as phenotypic variation. This phenomenon raises questions about the genetic variation before and after (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Steven Hecht Orzack (2010). Adaptationism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.score: 9.0
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Roberta L. Millstein (2002). Review of Steven Hecht Orzack, Elliot Sober (Eds.), Adaptationism and Optimality. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2002 (5).score: 9.0
  49. David B. Resnik (1989). Adaptationist Explanations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 20 (2):193-213.score: 9.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. William Michael Brown (2002). Development: The Missing Link Between Exaptationist and Adaptationist Accounts of Organismal Design. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):509-510.score: 9.0
    To understand adaptation (and exaptation), a more comprehensive view of development is required: one beyond a constraining force. Developmental plasticity may be an adaptation by natural selection simultaneously favored (or sometimes in conflict) at multiple levels of biological organization (e.g., cells, individuals, groups, etc.). To understand the interrelationships between developmental plasticity and adaptive evolution I borrow heavily from West-Eberhard (2003) and Frank (1995; 1997). Developmental plasticity facilitates evolution, results in particular patterns of evolutionary change, and may produce exaptations by design (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 171