Search results for 'evolutionary biology' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. David N. Stamos (1996). Popper, Falsifiability, and Evolutionary Biology. Biology and Philosophy 11 (2):161-191.score: 246.0
    First, a brief history is provided of Popper's views on the status of evolutionary biology as a science. The views of some prominent biologists are then canvassed on the matter of falsifiability and its relation to evolutionary biology. Following that, I argue that Popper's programme of falsifiability does indeed exclude evolutionary biology from within the circumference of genuine science, that Popper's programme is fundamentally incoherent, and that the correction of this incoherence results in a (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Massimo Pigliucci (2006). Evolutionary Biology: Puzzle Solving or Paradigm Shifting? Quarterly Review of Biology 81 (4):377-379.score: 246.0
    How does evolutionary biology fit with Thomas Kuhn's famous distinction between puzzle solving and paradigm shifts in science?
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Alfonso Arroyo-Santos, Mark E. Olson & Francisco Vergara-Silva (2013). The Phylogeography Debate and the Epistemology of Model-Based Evolutionary Biology. Biology and Philosophy:1-18.score: 246.0
    Phylogeography, a relatively new subdicipline of evolutionary biology that attempts to unify the fields of phylogenetics and population biology in an explicit geographical context, has hosted in recent years a highly polarized debate related to the purported benefits and limitations that qualitative versus quantitative methods might contribute or impose on inferential processes in evolutionary biology. Here we present a friendly, non-technical introduction to the conflicting methods underlying the controversy, and exemplify it with a balanced selection (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Massimo Pigliucci (2002). Are Ecology and Evolutionary Biology “Soft” Sciences? Annales Zoologici Finnici 39:87-98.score: 240.0
    Research in ecology and evolutionary biology (evo-eco) often tries to emulate the “hard” sciences such as physics and chemistry, but to many of its practitioners feels more like the “soft” sciences of psychology and sociology. I argue that this schizophrenic attitude is the result of lack of appreciation of the full consequences of the peculiarity of the evo-eco sciences as lying in between a-historical disciplines such as physics and completely historical ones as like paleontology. Furthermore, evo-eco researchers have (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Michel Morange (2010). How Evolutionary Biology Presently Pervades Cell and Molecular Biology. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 41 (1):113 - 120.score: 240.0
    The increasing place of evolutionary scenarios in functional biology is one of the major indicators of the present encounter between evolutionary biology and functional biology (such as physiology, biochemistry and molecular biology), the two branches of biology which remained separated throughout the twentieth century. Evolutionary scenarios were not absent from functional biology, but their places were limited, and they did not generate research programs. I compare two examples of these past scenarios (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Kevin N. Laland, John Odling-Smee, Marcus W. Feldman & Jeremy Kendal (2009). Conceptual Barriers to Progress Within Evolutionary Biology. Foundations of Science 14 (3):195-216.score: 240.0
    In spite of its success, Neo-Darwinism is faced with major conceptual barriers to further progress, deriving directly from its metaphysical foundations. Most importantly, neo-Darwinism fails to recognize a fundamental cause of evolutionary change, “niche construction”. This failure restricts the generality of evolutionary theory, and introduces inaccuracies. It also hinders the integration of evolutionary biology with neighbouring disciplines, including ecosystem ecology, developmental biology, and the human sciences. Ecology is forced to become a divided discipline, developmental (...) is stubbornly difficult to reconcile with evolutionary theory, and the majority of biologists and social scientists are still unhappy with evolutionary accounts of human behaviour. The incorporation of niche construction as both a cause and a product of evolution removes these disciplinary boundaries while greatly generalizing the explanatory power of evolutionary theory. (shrink)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Anne Gammelgaard (2000). Evolutionary Biology and the Concept of Disease. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 3 (2):109-116.score: 240.0
    In recent years, an increasing number of medical books and papers attempting to analyse the concepts of health and disease from the perspective of evolutionary biology have been published (Eaton etal., 1993; Ewald, 1993; Harrison, 1993; Nesse and Williams, 1995; Profet, 1991; Rose, 1991; Temple and Burkitt, 1994). This paper introduces the evolutionary approach to health and disease in an attempt to illuminate the premisses and the framework of Darwinian medicine. My primary aim is to analyse to (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Patricia Adair Gowaty (1992). Evolutionary Biology and Feminism. Human Nature 3 (3):217-249.score: 240.0
    Evolutionary biology and feminism share a variety of philosophical and practical concerns. I have tried to describe how a perspective from both evolutionary biology and feminism can accelerate the achievement of goals for both feminists and evolutionary biologists. In an early section of this paper I discuss the importance of variation to the disciplines of evolutionary biology and feminism. In the section entitled “Control of Female Reproduction” I demonstrate how insight provided by participation (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Massimo Pigliucci (2013). The Nature of Evolutionary Biology: At the Borderlands Between Historical and Experimental Science. In Kostas Kampourakis (ed.), The Philosophy of Biology: A Companion for Educators. Springer.score: 222.0
    The scientific status of evolutionary theory seems to be more or less perennially under question. I am not referring here (just) to the silliness of young Earth creation- ism (Pigliucci 2002; Boudry and Braeckman 2010), or even of the barely more intel- lectually sophisticated so-called Intelligent Design theory (Recker 2010; Brigandt this volume), but rather to discussions among scientists and philosophers of science concerning the epistemic status of evolutionary theory (Sober 2010). As we shall see in what follows, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Stavros Ioannidis (2013). Regulatory Evolution and Theoretical Arguments in Evolutionary Biology. Science and Education 22 (2):279-292.score: 222.0
    The cis-regulatory hypothesis is one of the most important claims of evolutionary developmental biology. In this paper I examine the theoretical argument for cis-regulatory evolution and its role within evolutionary theorizing. I show that, although the argument has some weaknesses, it acts as a useful example for the importance of current scientific debates for science education.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. W. S. Cooper (1989). How Evolutionary Biology Challenges the Classical Theory of Rational Choice. Biology and Philosophy 4 (4):457-481.score: 222.0
    A fundamental philosophical question that arises in connection with evolutionary theory is whether the fittest patterns of behavior are always the most rational. Are fitness and rationality fully compatible? When behavioral rationality is characterized formally as in classical decision theory, the question becomes mathematically meaningful and can be explored systematically by investigating whether the optimally fit behavior predicted by evolutionary process models is decision-theoretically coherent. Upon investigation, it appears that in nontrivial evolutionary models the expected behavior is (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Bernd Rosslenbroich (2006). The Notion of Progress in Evolutionary Biology – the Unresolved Problem and an Empirical Suggestion. Biology and Philosophy 21 (1):41-70.score: 210.0
    Modern biology is ambivalent about the notion of evolutionary progress. Although most evolutionists imply in their writings that they still understand large-scale macroevolution as a somewhat progressive process, the use of the term “progress” is increasingly criticized and avoided. The paper shows that this ambivalence has a long history and results mainly from three problems: (1) The term “progress” carries historical, theoretical and social implications which are not congruent with modern knowledge of the course of evolution; (2) An (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Jack Baker (2011). Review of Jonathan CK Wells's The Evolutionary Biology of Human Body Fatness: Thrift and Control (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). [REVIEW] Human Nature 22 (4):439-443.score: 210.0
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Raphael Scholl & Massimo Pigliucci (forthcoming). The Proximate–Ultimate Distinction and Evolutionary Developmental Biology: Causal Irrelevance Versus Explanatory Abstraction. Biology and Philosophy:1-18.score: 204.0
    Mayr’s proximate–ultimate distinction has received renewed interest in recent years. Here we discuss its role in arguments about the relevance of developmental to evolutionary biology. We show that two recent critiques of the proximate–ultimate distinction fail to explain why developmental processes in particular should be of interest to evolutionary biologists. We trace these failures to a common problem: both critiques take the proximate–ultimate distinction to neglect specific causal interactions in nature. We argue that this is implausible, and (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Alan C. Love (2003). Evolutionary Morphology, Innovation, and the Synthesis of Evolutionary and Developmental Biology. Biology and Philosophy 18 (2):309-345.score: 198.0
    One foundational question in contemporarybiology is how to `rejoin evolution anddevelopment. The emerging research program(evolutionary developmental biology or`evo-devo) requires a meshing of disciplines,concepts, and explanations that have beendeveloped largely in independence over the pastcentury. In the attempt to comprehend thepresent separation between evolution anddevelopment much attention has been paid to thesplit between genetics and embryology in theearly part of the 20th century with itscodification in the exclusion of embryologyfrom the Modern Synthesis. This encourages acharacterization of evolutionary developmentalbiology (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Massimo Pigliucci (2009). An Extended Synthesis for Evolutionary Biology. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 1168:218-228.score: 192.0
    Evolutionary theory is undergoing an intense period of discussion and reevaluation. This, contrary to the misleading claims of creationists and other pseudoscientists, is no harbinger of a crisis but rather the opposite: the field is expanding dramatically in terms of both empirical discoveries and new ideas. In this essay I briefly trace the conceptual history of evolutionary theory from Darwinism to neo-Darwinism, and from the Modern Synthesis to what I refer to as the Extended Synthesis, a more inclusive (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. William P. Bechtel & Jennifer Mundale (1996). Integrating Neuroscience, Psychology, and Evolutionary Biology Through a Teleological Conception of Function. Minds And Machines 6 (4):481-505.score: 192.0
    The idea of integrating evolutionary biology and psychology has great promise, but one that will be compromised if psychological functions are conceived too abstractly and neuroscience is not allowed to play a contructive role. We argue that the proper integration of neuroscience, psyychology, and evolutionary biology requires a telelogical as opposed to a merely componential analysis of function. A teleological analysis is required in neuroscience itself; we point to traditional and curent research methods in neuroscience, which (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Massimo Pigliucci (2008). Weighing the Evidence in Evolutionary Biology. [REVIEW] Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23 (12):662-663.score: 192.0
    The joke among scientists is that ‘philosopher’ is the last stage of one’s scien- tific career, to be arrived at when one can no longer get grants funded or graduate stu- dents to advise. Despite the fact that some of the greatest minds in evolutionary biology (from Darwin to Ernst Mayr) were very much interested in the philosophical aspects of what they were doing, the bad joke persists in the halls of academia.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Jennifer Mundale & William P. Bechtel (1996). Integrating Neuroscience, Psychology, and Evolutionary Biology Through a Teleological Conception of Function. Minds and Machines 6 (4):481-505.score: 192.0
    The idea of integrating evolutionary biology and psychology has great promise, but one that will be compromised if psychological functions are conceived too abstractly and neuroscience is not allowed to play a contructive role. We argue that the proper integration of neuroscience, psychology, and evolutionary biology requires a telelogical as opposed to a merely componential analysis of function. A teleological analysis is required in neuroscience itself; we point to traditional and curent research methods in neuroscience, which (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Kim Sterelny (1996). Explanatory Pluralism in Evolutionary Biology. Biology and Philosophy 11 (2):193-214.score: 186.0
    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 (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. C. U. M. Smith (1987). “Clever Beasts Who Invented Knowing”: Nietzsche's Evolutionary Biology of Knowledge. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 2 (1):65-91.score: 186.0
    Nietzsche was a philosopher, not a biologist, Nevertheless his philosophical thought was deeply influenced by ideas emerging from the evolutionary biology of the nineteenth century. His relationship to the Darwinism of his time is difficult to disentangle. It is argued that he was in a sense an unwitting Darwinist. It follows that his philosophical thought is of considerable interest to those concerned to develop an evolutionary biology of mankind. His approach can be likened to that of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Patrick Bateson (1989). Does Evolutionary Biology Contribute to Ethics? Biology and Philosophy 4 (3):287-301.score: 186.0
    Human propensities that are the products of Darwinian evolution may combine to generate a form of social behavior that is not itself a direct result of such pressure. This possibility may provide a satisfying explanation for the origin of socially transmitted rules such as the incest taboo. Similarly, the regulatory processes of development that generated adaptations to the environment in the circumstances in which they evolved can produce surprising and sometimes maladaptive consequences for the individual in modern conditions. These combinatorial (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Todd Grantham (2004). The Role of Fossils in Phylogeny Reconstruction: Why is It so Difficult to Integrate Paleobiological and Neontological Evolutionary Biology? [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 19 (5):687-720.score: 186.0
    Why has it been so difficult to integrate paleontology and mainstream evolutionary biology? Two common answers are: (1) the two fields have fundamentally different aims, and (2) the tensions arise out of disciplinary squabbles for funding and prestige. This paper examines the role of fossil data in phylogeny reconstruction in order to assess these two explanations. I argue that while cladistics has provided a framework within which to integrate fossil character data, the stratigraphic (temporal) component of fossil data (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Anton Markoš (2002). Readers of the Book of Life: Contextualizing Developmental Evolutionary Biology. Oxford University Press.score: 186.0
    This is a wide ranging and deeply learned examination of evolutionary developmental biology, and the foundations of life from the perspective of information theory. Hermeneutics was a method developed in the humanities to achieve understanding, in a given context, of texts, history, and artwork. In Readers of the Book of Life, the author shows that living beings are also hermeneutical interpreters of genetics texts saved in DNA; an interpretation based on the past experience of the cell (cell lineage, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Masakado Kawata (1987). Units and Passages: A View for Evolutionary Biology and Ecology. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 2 (4):415-434.score: 186.0
    Many authors, including paleobiologists, cladists and so on, adopt a nested hierarchical viewpoint to examine the relationships among different levels of biological organization. Furthermore, species are often considered to be unique entities in functioning evolutionary processes and one of the individuals forming a nested hierarchy.I have attempted to show that such a hierarchical view is inadequate in evolutionary biology. We should define units depending on what we are trying to explain. Units that play an important role in (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Bart Voorzanger (1987). No Norms and No Nature — the Moral Relevance of Evolutionary Biology. Biology and Philosophy 2 (3):253-270.score: 186.0
    Many think that evolutionary biology has relevance to ethics, but how far that relevance extends is a matter of debate. It is easy to show that pop sociobiological approaches to ethics all commit some type of naturalistic fallacy. More sophisticated attempts, like Donald Campbell's, or, more recently, Robert Richards', are not so easily refuted, but I will show that they too reason fallaciously from facts to values. What remains is the possibility of an evolutionary search for human (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Kari Vepsäläinen & John R. Spence (2000). Generalization in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology: From Hypothesis to Paradigm. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 15 (2):211-238.score: 186.0
    We argue that broad, simplegeneralizations, not specifically linked tocontingencies, will rarely approach truth in ecologyand evolutionary biology. This is because mostinteresting phenomena have multiple, interactingcauses. Instead of looking for single universaltheories to explain the great diversity of naturalsystems, we suggest that it would be profitable todevelop general explanatory frameworks. A frameworkshould clearly specify focal levels. The process orpattern that we wish to study defines our level offocus. The set of potential and actual states at thefocal level interacts with (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Elisabeth A. Lloyd (2000). Groups on Groups: Some Dynamics and Possible Resolution of the Units of Selection Debates in Evolutionary Biology. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 15 (3):389-401.score: 186.0
    David Hull's analysis of conceptual change in science, as presentedin his book, Science as a Process (1988), provides a useful framework for understanding one of the scientific controversies in which he actively and constructively intervened, the units of selectiondebates in evolutionary biology. What follows is a brief overview ofthose debates and some reflections on them.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Maxine Sheets-Johnstone (2007). Finding Common Ground Between Evolutionary Biology and Continental Philosophy. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6 (3):327-348.score: 180.0
    This article identifies already existing theoretical and methodological commonalities between evolutionary biology and phenomenology, concentrating specifically on their common pursuit of origins. It identifies in passing theoretical support from evolutionary biology for present-day concerns in philosophy, singling out Sartre’s conception of fraternity as an example. It anchors its analysis of the common pursuit of origins in Husserl’s consistent recognition of the grounding significance of Nature and in his consistent recognition of animate forms of life other than (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Brian Leiter & Michael Weisberg (2010). Why Evolutionary Biology is (so Far) Irrelevant to Legal Regulation. Law and Philosophy 29 (1):31-74.score: 180.0
    Evolutionary biology – or, more precisely, two (purported) applications of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, namely, evolutionary psychology and what has been called human behavioral biology – is on the cusp of becoming the new rage among legal scholars looking for interdisciplinary insights into the law. We argue that as the actual science stands today, evolutionary biology offers nothing to help with questions about legal regulation of behavior. Only systematic misrepresentations or lack (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. David N. Stamos (2001). Quantum Indeterminism and Evolutionary Biology. Philosophy of Science 68 (2):164-184.score: 180.0
    In "The Indeterministic Character of Evolutionary Theory: No 'Hidden Variables Proof' But No Room for Determinism Either," Brandon and Carson (1996) argue that evolutionary theory is statistical because the processes it describes are fundamentally statistical. In "Is Indeterminism the Source of the Statistical Character of Evolutionary Theory?" Graves, Horan, and Rosenberg (1999) argue in reply that the processes of evolutionary biology are fundamentally deterministic and that the statistical character of evolutionary theory is explained by (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. James A. T. Lancaster (2011). The Semantic Structure of Evolutionary Biology as an Argument Against Intelligent Design. Zygon 46 (1):26-46.score: 180.0
    Abstract. This paper examines the impact of two formalizations of evolutionary biology on the antiselectionist critiques of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. It looks first at attempts to apply the syntactic framework of the physical sciences to biology in the twentieth century, and to their effect upon the ID movement. It then examines the more heuristic account of biological-theory structure, namely, the semantic model. Finally, it concludes by advocating the semantic conception and emphasizing the problems that the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Ron Amundson (1998). Typology Reconsidered: Two Doctrines on the History of Evolutionary Biology. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 13 (2):153-177.score: 180.0
    Recent historiography of 19th century biology supports the revision of two traditional doctrines about the history of biology. First, the most important and widespread biological debate around the time of Darwin was not evolution versus creation, but biological functionalism versus structuralism. Second, the idealist and typological structuralist theories of the time were not particularly anti-evolutionary. Typological theories provided argumentation and evidence that was crucial to the refutation of Natural Theological creationism. The contrast between functionalist and structuralist approaches (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. N. Laland Kevin, Marcus John Odling-Smee & Jeremy Kendal W. Feldman (2009). Conceptual Barriers to Progress Within Evolutionary Biology. Foundations of Science 14 (3).score: 180.0
    In spite of its success, Neo-Darwinism is faced with major conceptual barriers to further progress, deriving directly from its metaphysical foundations. Most importantly, neo-Darwinism fails to recognize a fundamental cause of evolutionary change, “niche construction”. This failure restricts the generality of evolutionary theory, and introduces inaccuracies. It also hinders the integration of evolutionary biology with neighbouring disciplines, including ecosystem ecology, developmental biology, and the human sciences. Ecology is forced to become a divided discipline, developmental (...) is stubbornly difficult to reconcile with evolutionary theory, and the majority of biologists and social scientists are still unhappy with evolutionary accounts of human behaviour. The incorporation of niche construction as both a cause and a product of evolution removes these disciplinary boundaries while greatly generalizing the explanatory power of evolutionary theory. (shrink)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Joshua Filler (2009). Newtonian Forces and Evolutionary Biology: A Problem and Solution for Extending the Force Interpretation. Philosophy of Science 76 (5):774-783.score: 180.0
    There has recently been a renewed interest in the “force” interpretation of evolutionary biology. In this article, I present the general structure of the arguments for the force interpretation and identify a problem in its overly permissive conditions for being a Newtonian force. I then attempt a solution that (1) helps to illuminate the difference between forces and other types of causes and (2) makes room for random genetic drift as a force. In particular, I argue that forces (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. John Beatty (1980). Optimal-Design Models and the Strategy of Model Building in Evolutionary Biology. Philosophy of Science 47 (4):532-561.score: 180.0
    The prevalence of optimality models in the literature of evolutionary biology is testimony to their popularity and importance. Evolutionary biologist R. C. Lewontin, whose criticisms of optimality models are considered here, reflects that "optimality arguments have become extremely popular in the last fifteen years, and at present represent the dominant mode of thought." Although optimality models have received little attention in the philosophical literature, these models are very interesting from a philosophical point of view. As will be (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Wim J. van der Steen (1999). Methodological Problems in Evolutionary Biology. XII. Against Evolutionary Ethics. Acta Biotheoretica 47 (1).score: 180.0
    Evolutionary ethics has recently become popular again. Some of its representatives elaborate new attempts to derive ethics from evolutionary biology. The attempts, like previous ones, fail because they commit the naturalistic fallacy. Premises from evolutionary biology together with normative premises also do not justify ethical principles. Other representatives argue that evolutionary considerations imply that ethics cannot be justified at all. Their arguments presuppose an unacceptable form of foundationalism. In principle, evolutionary biology might (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Wim J. van der Steen (2000). Methodological Problems in Evolutionary Biology. XIII. Evolution and Knowledge. Acta Biotheoretica 48 (1).score: 180.0
    Evolutionary epistemologists aim to explain the evolution of cognitive capacities underlying human knowledge and also the processes that generate knowledge, for example in science. There can be no doubt that our cognitive capacities are due in part to our evolutionary heritage. But this is an uninformative thesis. All features of organism have indeed been shaped by evolution. A substantive evolutionary explanation of cognition would have to provide details about the evolutionary processes involved. Evolutionary epistemology has (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Wim J. Steen (1986). Methodological Problems in Evolutionary Biology VI. The Force of Evolutionary Epistemology. Acta Biotheoretica 35 (3).score: 180.0
    Evolutionary epistemology takes various forms. As a philosophical discipline, it may use analogies by borrowing concepts from evolutionary biology to establish new foundations. This is not a very successful enterprise because the analogies involved are so weak that they hardly have explanatory force. It may also veil itself with the garbs of biology. Proponents of this strategy have only produced irrelevant theories by transforming epistemology's concepts beyond recognition. Sensible theories about knowledge and biology should presuppose (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Roberta L. Millstein (2011). Chances and Causes in Evolutionary Biology: How Many Chances Become One Chance. In P. M. Illari, F. Russo & J. Williamson (eds.), Causality in the Sciences. Oxford University Press. 2--425.score: 180.0
    As a number of biologists and philosophers have emphasized, ‘chance’ has multiple meanings in evolutionary biology. Seven have been identified. I will argue that there is a unified concept of chance underlying these seven, which I call the UCC (Unified Chance Concept). I will argue that each is characterized by which causes are consid- ered, ignored, or prohibited. Thus, chance in evolutionary biology can only be under- stood through understanding the causes at work. The UCC aids (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Mary B. Williams (1982). The Importance of Prediction Testing in Evolutionary Biology. Erkenntnis 17 (3):291 - 306.score: 180.0
    It is clear from the above discussion that if I had wished to do so I could have truthfully presented every paper as either testing a prediction, presenting evidence needed in the test of a prediction, or presentin a D-N explanation. (I would not have been able to do this if I had not been sufficiently familiar with the evolutionary literature to recognize what hypotheses were at stake in several of the papers; even when the authors mention the hypotheses (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Anna Ijjas (2013). Quantum Aspects of Life: Relating Evolutionary Biology with Theology Via Modern Physics. Zygon 48 (1):60-76.score: 180.0
    In the present paper, I shall argue that quantum theory can contribute to reconciling evolutionary biology with the creation hypothesis. After giving a careful definition of the theological problem, I will, in a first step, formulate necessary conditions for the compatibility of evolutionary theory and the creation hypothesis. In a second step, I will show how quantum theory can contribute to fulfilling these conditions. More precisely, I claim that (1) quantum probabilities are best understood in terms of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Roberta L. Millstein (2010). The Concepts of Population and Metapopulation in Evolutionary Biology and Ecology. In M. A. Bell, D. J. Futuyma, W. F. Eanes & J. S. Levinton (eds.), Evolution Since Darwin: The First 150 Years. Sinauer.score: 180.0
    This paper aims to illustrate one of the primary goals of the philosophy of biology⎯namely, the examination of central concepts in biological theory and practice⎯through an analysis of the concepts of population and metapopulation in evolutionary biology and ecology. I will first provide a brief background for my analysis, followed by a characterization of my proposed concepts: the causal interactionist concepts of population and metapopulation. I will then illustrate how the concepts apply to six cases that differ (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Stephen Jay Gould, "The Pattern of Life's History" Stuart Kauffman: Steve is Extremely Bright, Inventive. He Thoroughly Understands Paleontology; He Thoroughly Understands Evolutionary Biology. He Has.. [REVIEW]score: 180.0
    Stuart Kauffman: Steve is extremely bright, inventive. He thoroughly understands paleontology; he thoroughly understands evolutionary biology. He has performed an enormous service in getting people to think about punctuated equilibrium, because you see the process of stasis/sudden change, which is a puzzle. It's the cessation of change for long periods of time. Since you always have mutations, why don't things continue changing? You either have to say that the particular form is highly adapted, optimal, and exists in a (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Wim J. Steen (1983). Methodological Problems in Evolutionary Biology I. Testability and Tautologies. Acta Biotheoretica 32 (3).score: 180.0
    The impact of philosophy of science on biology is slight. Evolutionary biology, however, is nowadays an exception. The status of the neo-Darwinian (synthetic) theory of evolution is seriously challenged from a methodological perspective. However, the methodology used in the relevant discussions is plainly defective. A correct application of methodology to evolutionary theory leads to the following conclusions. (a) The theory of natural selection (the core of neo-Darwinism) is unfalsifiable in a strict sense of the term. This, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. P. Dullemeijer (1980). Functional Morphology and Evolutionary Biology. Acta Biotheoretica 29 (3-4).score: 180.0
    In this study the relationship between functional morpholoy and evolutionary biology is analysed by confronting the main concepts in both disciplines.Rather than only discussing this connection theoretically, the analysis is carried out by introducing important practical and experimental studies, which use aspects from both disciplines. The mentioned investigations are methodologically analysed and the consequences for extensions of the relationship are worked out. It can be shown that both disciplines have a large domain of their own and also share (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Roberta L. Millstein (2010). Review: Choosing Selection: The Revival of Natural Selection in Anglo-American Evolutionary Biology, 1930-1970. [REVIEW] Reports of the National Center for Science Education 30 (6):32.score: 180.0
    This is a book review of _Choosing Selection: The Revival of Natural Selection in Anglo-American Evolutionary Biology, 1930-1970_ by Stephen G Brush.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Bart Voorzanger (1987). Methodological Problems in Evolutionary Biology VIII. Biology and Culture. Acta Biotheoretica 36 (1).score: 180.0
    Biology cannot accommodate all aspects of culture. Aspects of culture that a biological approach can take into account can be covered by the biological categories of phenotype and environment. There is no need to treat culture as a separate category. Attempts to elaborate biological explanations of cultural variation will meet with success only if biologists expand theories of development, and integrate them in evolutionary biology. The alternative — elaborating the idea of so-called cultural inheritance — makes little (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Timothy Shanahan (1991). Chance as an Explanatory Factor in Evolutionary Biology. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 13 (2):249 - 268.score: 180.0
    Darwinian evolutionary biology has often been criticized for appealing to the notion of 'chance' in its explanations. According to some critics, such appeals exhibit the explanatory poverty of evolutionary theory. In response, defenders of Darwinism sometimes downplay the importance of 'chance' in evolution. I believe that both of these approaches are mistaken. The main thesis of this paper is that the term 'chance' encompasses a number of distinct concepts, and that at least some of these concepts serve (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Roberto Torretti (2010). La proliferación de los conceptos de especie en la biología evolucionista (The proliferation of species concepts in evolutionary biology). Theoria 25 (3):325-377.score: 180.0
    RESUMEN: La biología evolucionista no ha logrado definir un concepto de especie que satisfaga a todos sus colaboradores. El presente panorama crítico de las principales propuestas y sus respectivas dificultades apunta, por un lado, a ilustrar los procesos de formación de conceptos en las ciencias empíricas y, por otro, a socavar la visión parateológica del conocimiento y la verdad que inspiró inicialmente a la ciencia moderna y prevalece aún entre muchas personas educadas. El artículo se divide en dos partes. La (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000