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

1000+ found
Sort by:
See also:
  1. Franz M. Wuketits (1986). Evolution as a Cognition Process: Towards an Evolutionary Epistemology. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 1 (2):191-206.score: 240.0
    Recently, biologist and philosophers have been much attracted by an evolutionary view of knowledge, so-called evolutionary epistemology. Developing this insight, the present paper argues that our cognitive abilities are the outcome of organic evolution, and that, conversely, evolution itself may be described as a cognition process. Furthermore, it is argued that the key to an adequate evolutionary epistemology lies in a system-theoretical approach to evolution which grows from, but goes beyond, Darwin's theory of natural selection.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. David Sloan Wilson (1990). Species of Thought: A Comment on Evolutionary Epistemology. Biology and Philosophy 5 (1):37-62.score: 240.0
    The primary outcome of natural selection is adaptation to an environment. The primary concern of epistemology is the acquistion of knowledge. Evolutionary epistemology must therefore draw a fundamental connection between adaptation and knowledge. Existing frameworks in evolutionary epistemology do this in two ways; (a) by treating adaptation as a form of knowledge, and (b) by treating the ability to acquire knowledge as a biologically evolved adaptation. I criticize both frameworks for failing to appreciate that mental (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. H. C. Plotkin (1987). Evolutionary Epistemology as Science. Biology and Philosophy 2 (3):295-313.score: 240.0
    What credentials does evolutionary epistemology have as science? A judgement based on past performance, both in terms of advancing an empirical programme and further ng theory construction, is not much. This paper briefly outlines some of the research areas, both theoretical and empirical, that can be developed and that might secure for evolutionary epistemology a future in evolutionary biology.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. C. A. Hooker (1994). Regulatory Constructivism: On the Relation Between Evolutionary Epistemology and Piaget's Genetic Epistemology. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 9 (2):197-244.score: 240.0
    It is argued that fundamental to Piaget''s life works is a biologically based naturalism in which the living world is a nested complex of self-regulating, self-organising (constructing) adaptive systems. A structuralist-rationalist overlay on this core position is distinguished and it is shown how it may be excised without significant loss of content or insight. A new and richer conception of the nature of Piaget''s genetic epistemology emerges, one which enjoys rich interrelationships with evolutionary epistemology. These are explored (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Raphael Falk (1993). Evolutionary Epistemology: What Phenotype is Selected and Which Genotype Evolves? Biology and Philosophy 8 (2):153-172.score: 240.0
    In 1941/42 Konrad Lorenz suggested that Kant's transcendental categories ofa priori knowledge could be given an empirical interpretation in Darwinian material evolutionary terms: a priori propositional knowledge was an organ subject to natural selection for adaptation to its specific environments. D. Campbell extended the conception, and termed evolution a process of knowledge. The philosophical problem of what knowledge is became a descriptive one of how knowledge developed, the normative semantic questions have been sidestepped, as if the descriptive insights would (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Edward Stein & Peter Lipton (1989). Where Guesses Come From: Evolutionary Epistemology and the Anomaly of Guided Variation. Biology and Philosophy 4 (1):33-56.score: 240.0
    This paper considers a central objection to evolutionary epistemology. The objection is that biological and epistemic development are not analogous, since while biological variation is blind, epistemic variation is not. The generation of hypotheses, unlike the generation of genotypes, is not random. We argue that this objection is misguided and show how the central analogy of evolutionary epistemology can be preserved. The core of our reply is that much epistemic variation is indeed directed by heuristics, but (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Valerie Gray Hardcastle (1993). Evolutionary Epistemology as an Overlapping, Interlevel Theory. Biology and Philosophy 8 (2):173-192.score: 240.0
    I examine the branch of evolutionary epistemology which tries to account for the character of cognitive mechanisms in animals and humans by extending the biological theory of evolution to the neurophysiological substrates of cognition. Like Plotkin, I construe this branch as a struggling science, and attempt to characterize the sort of theory one might expect to find this truly interdisciplinary endeavor, an endeavor which encompasses not only evolutionary biology, cognitive psychology, and developmental neuroscience, but also and especially, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Thomas Kesselring (1992). Führt Die Evolutionäre Erkenntnistheorie in Einen Relativismus?The Evolutionary Epistemology: Does It Lead to a Relativism? Journal for General Philosophy of Science 23 (2):265-288.score: 240.0
    This essay is a discussion of Eve-Marie Engels' view on Evolutionary Epistemology (EE). In the first part two of the main doctrines of EE are criticized: (1.) that validity of human knowledge is to be explained as the result of evolutionary adaptation; yet (2.), that human cognitive capacities had been adequate to our ancestors life conditions but fail in relevant situations of modern world. In the second part the concept of reality underlying EE's adaptational view is discussed (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Helen De Cruz & Johan De Smedt (2013). Reformed and Evolutionary Epistemology and the Noetic Effects of Sin. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 74 (1):49-66.score: 224.0
    Despite their divergent metaphysical assumptions, Reformed and evolutionary epistemologists have converged on the notion of proper basicality. Where Reformed epistemologists appeal to God, who has designed the mind in such a way that it successfully aims at the truth, evolutionary epistemologists appeal to natural selection as a mechanism that favors truth-preserving cognitive capacities. This paper investigates whether Reformed and evolutionary epistemological accounts of theistic belief are compatible. We will argue that their chief incompatibility lies in the noetic (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. James Maffie (1997). “Just-so” Stories About “Inner Cognitive Africa”: Some Doubts About Sorensen's Evolutionary Epistemology of Thought Experiments. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 12 (2):207-224.score: 222.0
    Roy Sorensen advances an evolutionary explanation of our capacity for thought experiments which doubles as a naturalized epistemological justification. I argue Sorensens explanation fails to satisfy key elements of environmental-selectionist explanations and so fails to carry epistemic force. I then argue that even if Sorensen succeeds in showing the adaptive utility of our capacity, he still fails to establish its reliability and hence epistemic utility. I conclude Sorensens account comes to little more than a just-so story.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Philippe Gagnon (2012). A Look at the Inference Engine Underlying ‘Evolutionary Epistemology’ Accounts of the Production of Heuristics. In Dirk Evers, Antje Jackelén, Michael Fuller & Taede A. Smedes (eds.), Is Religion Natural? Studies in Science and Theology, No. 13. ESSSAT Biennial Yearbook 2011-2012. Martin-Luther-Universität.score: 216.0
    This paper evaluates the claim that it is possible to use nature’s variation in conjunction with retention and selection on the one hand, and the absence of ultimate groundedness of hypotheses generated by the human mind as it knows on the other hand, to discard the ascription of ultimate certainty to the rationality of human conjectures in the cognitive realm. This leads to an evaluation of the further assumption that successful hypotheses with specific applications, in other words heuristics, seem to (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. F. Michael Akeroyd (2004). Popper's Evolutionary Epistemology Revamped. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 35 (2):385 - 396.score: 210.0
    In a paper entitled “Revolution in Permanence”, published in the collection “Karl Popper: Philosophy and Problems”, John Worrall (1995) severely criticised several aspects of Karl Popper’s work before commenting that “I have no doubt that, given suffi-cient motivation, a case could be constructed on the basis of such remarks that Popper had a more sophisticated version of theory production......” (p. 102). Part of Worrall’s criticism is directed at a “strawpopper”: in his “Darwinian Model” emphasising the similarities and differences between genetic (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Franz M. Wuketits (1995). A Comment on Some Recent Arguments in Evolutionary Epistemology — and Some Counterarguments. Biology and Philosophy 10 (3):357-363.score: 210.0
  14. Naturalizing Of Epistemology (2002). The Sciences and Epistemology. In Paul K. Moser (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology. Oxford University Press.score: 210.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Trevor Hussey (1999). Evolutionary Change and Epistemology. Biology and Philosophy 14 (4):561-584.score: 210.0
    This paper is concerned with the debate in evolutionary epistemology about the nature of the evolutionary process at work in the development of science: whether it is Darwinian or Lamarckian. It is claimed that if we are to make progress through the many arguments that have grown up around this issue, we must return to an examination of the concepts of change and evolution, and examine the basic kinds of mechanism capable of bringing evolution about. This examination (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Michael Bradie (1986). Assessing Evolutionary Epistemology. Biology and Philosophy 1 (4):401-459.score: 192.0
    There are two interrelated but distinct programs which go by the name evolutionary epistemology. One attempts to account for the characteristics of cognitive mechanisms in animals and humans by a straightforward extension of the biological theory of evolution to those aspects or traits of animals which are the biological substrates of cognitive activity, e.g., their brains, sensory systems, motor systems, etc. (EEM program). The other program attempts to account for the evaluation of ideas, scientific theories and culture in (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Francis Remedios (2012). Review of Kuhn’s Evolutionary Social Epistemology. [REVIEW] Philosophy in Review 32 (6):533-535.score: 180.0
  18. Wayne D. Christensen & Clifford A. Hooker (1999). The Organization of Knowledge: Beyond Campbell's Evolutionary Epistemology. Philosophy of Science 66 (3):249.score: 180.0
    Donald Campbell has long advocated a naturalist epistemology based on a general selection theory, with the scope of knowledge restricted to vicarious adaptive processes. But being a vicariant is problematic because it involves an unexplained epistemic relation. We argue that this relation is to be explicated organizationally in terms of the regulation of behavior and internal state by the vicariant, but that Campbell's selectionist approach can give no satisfactory account of it because it is opaque to organization. We show (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. 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 that (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. M. Coleman (2002). Taking Simmel Seriously in Evolutionary Epistemology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (1):55-74.score: 180.0
    Donald T. Campbell outlines an epistemological theory that attempts to be faithful to evolution through natural selection. He takes his position to be consistent with that of Karl R. Popper, whom he credits as the primary advocate of his day for natural selection epistemology. Campbell writes that neither he nor Popper want to give up the goal of objectivity or objective truth, in spite of their evolutionary epistemology. In discussing the conflict between an epistemology based on (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. I. C. Jarvie (1988). Evolutionary Epistemology. Critical Review 2 (1):92-102.score: 180.0
    EVOLUTIONARY EPISTEMOLOGY, THEORY OF RATIONALITY, AND THE SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE by Gerard Radnitzky and W. W. Bartley, III La Salle, Ill.: Open Court, 1987. 475 pp., $39.95, $14.95 (paper).
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Wolfgang Friedrich Gutmann & Michael Weingarten (1990). Die Biotheoretischen Mängel der Evolutionären ErkenntnistheorieThe Biotheoretical Shortcomings of the Evolutionary Epistemology. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 21 (2):309-328.score: 180.0
    Summary The concept of evolutionary epistemology has been critically discussed by philosophers who have mainly pointed to unacceptable philosophical tenets (cf. Vittorio Hösle, this Journal, Vol. 19 (1988), pp. 348–377). However, as most philosophers are extremely reluctant to critically treat the biological theories on which the ideas of evolutionary epistemology are based, the invalid concepts of adaption escaped their critical scrutiny. Therefore the influence of preconceived biological theories on the biological basis of evolutionary epistemology (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Paul Thagard (1980). Against Evolutionary Epistemology. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:187 - 196.score: 180.0
    This paper is a critique of Darwinian models of the growth of scientific knowledge. Donald Campbell, Karl Popper, Stephen Toulmin, and others have discussed analogies between the development of biological species and the development of scientific knowledge: in both kinds of development, we find variation, selection, and transmission. It is argued that these similarities are superficial, and that closer examination of biological evolution and of the history of science shows that a non-Darwinian approach to historical epistemology is needed. An (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Kai Hahlweg (1986). Popper Versus Lorenz: An Exploration Into the Nature of Evolutionary Epistemology. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:172 - 182.score: 180.0
    This paper expounds the central tenets of the Austro-German school of evolutionary epistemology and points out that it conflicts in important aspects with Popper's. The conflict arises because some of the members of the above-mentioned school consider induction to be an absolutely central feature of any evolutionary epistemology. Thus the question arises if Poppers 'method of trial-and-error' is still to be considered to be the evolutionary method. The present author suggests that what is (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Hcdg De Regt (1998). Scientific Realism and the False Promise of Evolutionary Epistemology. In A. A. Derksen (ed.), The Promise of Evolutionary Epistemology. Tilburg University Press. 31-53.score: 180.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Michael Ruse (1998). Bringing in Culture: How the Study of Meta-Phor Enriches Evolutionary Epistemology. In A. A. Derksen (ed.), The Promise of Evolutionary Epistemology. Tilburg University Press. 5--157.score: 180.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Eugenie Gatens-Robinson (1993). Why Falsification is the Wrong Paradigm for Evolutionary Epistemology: An Analysis of Hull's Selection Theory. Philosophy of Science 60 (4):535-557.score: 176.0
    Contemporary empiricism has attempted to ground its analysis of science in a falsificationism based in selection theory. This paper links these evolutionary epistemologies with commitments to certain epistemological and ontological assumptions found in the later work of K. Popper, D. Campbell, and D. Hull, I argue that their assumptions about the character of contemporary empiricism are part of a shared paradigm of epistemological explanation which results in unresolved tensions within their own projects. I argue further that their claim to (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Darrell P. Rowbottom (2010). Evolutionary Epistemology and the Aim of Science. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (2):209-225.score: 168.0
    Both Popper and van Fraassen have used evolutionary analogies to defend their views on the aim of science, although these are diametrically opposed. By employing Price's equation in an illustrative capacity, this paper considers which view is better supported. It shows that even if our observations and experimental results are reliable, an evolutionary analogy fails to demonstrate why conjecture and refutation should result in: (1) the isolation of true theories; (2) successive generations of theories of increasing truth-likeness; (3) (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Milos Krstic (2012). Some Problems of Evolutionary Epistemology: Hayek's View on Evolution of Market. Filozofija I Društvo 23 (3):333-347.score: 162.0
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Barbara Gabriella Renzi (2009). Kuhn's Evolutionary Epistemology and its Being Undermined by Inadequate Biological Concepts. Philosophy of Science 76 (2):143-159.score: 156.0
    Kuhn made two attempts at providing an evolutionary analogy for scientific change. The first attempt, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , is very brief and unstructured; in this article I discuss some of its weaknesses. Alexander Bird takes this attempt more seriously and provides a criticism based on oversimplified evolutionary assumptions. These assumptions prove to be inadequate for the second, more articulate, evolutionary analogy suggested by Kuhn in “The Road since Structure.” I argue, however, that this (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Todd A. Grantham (2000). Evolutionary Epistemology, Social Epistemology, and the Demic Structure of Science. Biology and Philosophy 15 (3):443-463.score: 156.0
    One of the principal difficulties in assessing Science as aProcess (Hull 1988) is determining the relationship between the various elements of Hull's theory. In particular, it is hard to understand precisely how conceptual selection is related to Hull's account of the social dynamics of science. This essay aims to clarify the relation between these aspects of his theory by examining his discussion of the``demic structure'' of science. I conclude that the social account cando significant explanatory work independently of the selectionistaccount. (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. James Blachowicz (1995). Elimination, Correction and Popper's Evolutionary Epistemology. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 9 (1):5 – 17.score: 156.0
    Abstract Evolutionary epistemologists from Popper to Campbell have appropriated the Darwinian principle to explain the apparent fit between the world and our knowledge of it. I argue that this strategy suffers from the lack of any principled distinction among various types of elimination. I offer such a distinction and show that there is a species of elimination that is really corrective, that is, which violates the Darwinian principle as Popper understands it.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Brian Baigrie (1988). Why Evolutionary Epistemology is an Endangered Theory. Social Epistemology 2 (4):357 – 369.score: 156.0
  34. Michel Ter Hark (2004). Popper, Otto Selz, and the Rise of Evolutionary Epistemology. Cambridge University Press.score: 156.0
    This groundbreaking book is about Karl Popper's early writings before he began his career as a philosopher. The purpose of the book is to demonstrate that Popper's philosophy of science, with its emphasis on the method of trial and error, is largely based on the psychology of Otto Selz, whose theory of problem solving and scientific discovery laid the foundation for much of contemporary cognitive psychology. By arguing that Popper's famous defense of the method of falsification as well as his (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. A. J. Clark (1984). Evolutionary Epistemology and Ontological Realism. Philosophical Quarterly 34 (137):482-490.score: 150.0
  36. Michael Bradie, Evolutionary Epistemology. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.score: 150.0
  37. Raphael Falk (1994). Issues in Evolutionary Epistemology. Philosophia 23 (1-4):333-343.score: 150.0
  38. Martin Edman (1993). Evolutionary Epistemology and the Miracle of Knowledge. Theoria 59 (1-3):144-157.score: 150.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. John Lemos (2002). Theism, Evolutionary Epistemology, and Two Theories of Truth. Zygon 37 (4):789-801.score: 150.0
  40. Franz Wuketits (1997). Evolution, Cognition, and Survival: Evolutionary Epistemology and Derivative Topics. World Futures 51 (1):47-93.score: 150.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. H. Siegel (1997). Review. Reason, Regulation, and Realism: Towards a Regulatory Systems Theory of Reason and Evolutionary Epistemology. CA Hooker. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (1):121-125.score: 150.0
  42. Mehul Shah (2008). The Logics of Discovery in Popper's Evolutionary Epistemology. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 39 (2):303 - 319.score: 150.0
    Popper is well known for rejecting a logic of discovery, but he is only justified in rejecting the same type of logic of discovery that is denied by consequentialism. His own account of hypothesis generation, based on a natural selection analogy, involves an error-eliminative logic of discovery and the differences he admits between biological and conceptual evolution suggest an error-corrective logic of discovery. These types of logics of discovery are based on principles of plausibility that are used in the generation (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Carl R. Kordig (1982). Evolutionary Epistemology is Self-Referentially Inconsistent. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 42 (3):449-450.score: 150.0
  44. William Bechtel (1988). New Insights Into the Nature of Science: What Does Hull's Evolutionary Epistemology Teach Us? [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 3 (2):157-164.score: 150.0
  45. Gregory Currie (1978). Popper's Evolutionary Epistemology: A Critique. Synthese 37 (3):413 - 431.score: 150.0
  46. Thomas Kesselring (1994). A Comparison Between Evolutionary and Genetic Epistemology Or: Jean Piaget's Contribution to a Post-Darwinian Epistemology. [REVIEW] Journal for General Philosophy of Science 25 (2):293 - 325.score: 150.0
    The viewpoint of Evolutionary Epistemology (EE) and of Genetic Epistemology (GE) on classical epistemological questions is strikingly different: EE starts with Evolutionary Biology, the subject of which is population's dynamics. GE, however, starts with Developmental Psychology and thus focusses the development of individuals. By EE knowledge is seen as portraying or copying process, and truth is interpreted as a product of adaptation, whereas for GE knowledge is due to a construction process in which the production of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Nathalie Gontier, Evolutionary Epistemology. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.score: 150.0
  48. James Robert Brown (1985). Rescher's Evolutionary Epistemology. Philosophia 15 (3):287-300.score: 150.0
  49. Author unknown, Evolutionary Epistemology.score: 150.0
  50. Alan G. Gross (1988). Adaptation in Evolutionary Epistemology: Clarifying Hull's Model. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 3 (2):185-186.score: 150.0
1 — 50 / 1000