7 found
Sort by:
See also:
Profile: Ayelet Shavit (Tel Hai College, Israel)
  1. Ayelet Shavit & James Griesemer (2011). Transforming Objects Into Data: How Minute Technicalities of Recording “Species Location” Entrench a Basic Challenge for Biodiversity. In M. Carrier & A. Nordmann (eds.), Science in the Context of Application. Springer. 169--193.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Ohad Nachtomy, Yaron Ramati, Ayelet Shavit & Zohar Yakhini (2009). It Takes Two to Tango: Genotyping and Phenotyping in Genome-Wide Association Studies. Biological Theory 4 (3):294-301.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Ayelet Shavit & James Griesemer (2009). There and Back Again, or the Problem of Locality in Biodiversity Surveys. Philosophy of Science 76 (3):273-294.
    We argue that ‘locality’, perhaps the most mundane term in ecology, holds a basic ambiguity: two concepts of space—nomothetic and idiographic—which are both necessary for a rigorous resurvey to “the same” locality in the field, are committed to different practices with no common measurement. A case study unfolds the failure of the standard assumption that an exogenous grid of longitude and latitude, as fine‐grained as one wishes, suffices for revisiting a species locality. We briefly suggest a scale‐dependent “resolution” for this (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Ayelet Shavit & Roberta L. Millstein (2008). Group Selection is Dead! Long Live Group Selection? BioScience 58 (7):574-575.
    We live in interesting times. Two well-known biologists — E. O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins — and some of their well-known colleagues, who used to employ broadly similar selection models, now deeply disagree over the role of group selection in the evolution of eusociality (or so we argue). Yet they describe their models as interchangeable. As philosophers of biology, we wonder whether there is substantial (i.e., empirical) disagreement here at all, and, if there is, what is this disagreement about? We (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Ohad Nachtomy, Ayelet Shavit & Zohar Yakhini (2007). Gene Expression and the Concept of the Phenotype. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 38 (1):238-254.
    While the definition of the ‘genotype’ has undergone dramatic changes in the transition from classical to molecular genetics, the definition of the ‘phenotype’ has remained for a long time within the classical framework. In addition, while the notion of the genotype has received significant attention from philosophers of biology, the notion of the phenotype has not. Recent developments in the technology of measuring gene-expression levels have made it possible to conceive of phenotypic traits in terms of levels of gene expression. (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Ayelet Shavit (2005). The Notion of 'Group' and Tests of Group Selection. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):1052-1063.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. 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.
    I argue that images of the notion of group, in correspondence with their social and political values, shape the debate over the evolution of altruism by group selection. Important aspects of this debate are empirical, and criteria can decide among a variety of selection processes. However, leading researchers undermine or reinterpret such tests, explaining the evolution of altruism on the basis of a single extreme metaphor of ‘group’ and a single inclusive selection process. I shall argue that the extreme images (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation