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

719 found
Order:
See also:
  1. Ian D. Stephen, Mehmet K. Mahmut, Trevor I. Case, Julie Fitness & Richard J. Stevenson (2014). The Uniquely Predictive Power of Evolutionary Approaches to Mind and Behavior. Frontiers in Psychology 5.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  61
    Jonathan Birch (forthcoming). Hamilton's Two Conceptions of Social Fitness. Philosophy of Science.
    Hamilton introduced two conceptions of social fitness, which he called neighbour-modulated fitness and inclusive fitness. Although he regarded them as formally equivalent, a re-analysis of his own argument for their equivalence brings out two important assumptions on which it rests: weak additivity and actor's control. When weak additivity breaks down, neither fitness concept is appropriate in its original form. When actor's control breaks down, neighbour-modulated fitness may be appropriate, but inclusive fitness is not. Yet (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3. Jonathan Birch (forthcoming). Natural Selection and the Maximization of Fitness. Biological Reviews.
    The notion that natural selection is a process of fitness maximization gets a bad press in population genetics, yet in other areas of biology the view that organisms behave as if attempting to maximize their fitness remains widespread. Here I critically appraise the prospects for reconciliation. I first distinguish four varieties of fitness maximization. I then examine two recent developments that may appear to vindicate at least one of these varieties. The first is the ‘new’ interpretation of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  4. Charles H. Pence & Grant Ramsey (2013). A New Foundation for the Propensity Interpretation of Fitness. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (4):851-881.
    The propensity interpretation of fitness (PIF) is commonly taken to be subject to a set of simple counterexamples. We argue that three of the most important of these are not counterexamples to the PIF itself, but only to the traditional mathematical model of this propensity: fitness as expected number of offspring. They fail to demonstrate that a new mathematical model of the PIF could not succeed where this older model fails. We then propose a new formalization of the (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  5. Santiago Ginnobili (2013). Fitness ecológico. Contrastes. Revista Internacional de Filosofía: Suplemento 18:83-97.
    Existe un acuerdo relativo en la necesidad de distinguir dos usos del término «fitness»: el ecológico y el de la genética de poblaciones. Algunos consideran que el segundo ha venido a reemplazar al primero. Otros que el fitness ecológico tiene cierta capacidad explicativa de la que el segundo carece. Estos últimos autores han intentado dar respuesta a cómo es que el fitness ecológico se relaciona con las propiedades particulares de los organismos, siendo estas tan heterogéneas. En este (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  30
    Richard E. Michod (2005). On the Transfer of Fitness From the Cell to the Multicellular Organism. Biology and Philosophy 20 (5):967-987.
    The fitness of any evolutionary unit can be understood in terms of its two basic components: fecundity (reproduction) and viability (survival). Trade-offs between these fitness components drive the evolution of life-history traits in extant multicellular organisms. We argue that these trade-offs gain special significance during the transition from unicellular to multicellular life. In particular, the evolution of germ–soma specialization and the emergence of individuality at the cell group (or organism) level are also consequences of trade-offs between the two (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  7. Grant Ramsey & Charles H. Pence (2013). Fitness: Philosophical Problems. eLS.
    Fitness plays many roles throughout evolutionary theory, from a measure of populations in the wild to a central element in abstract theoretical presentations of natural selection. It has thus been the subject of an extensive philosophical literature, which has primarily centered on the way to understand the relationship between fitness values and reproductive outcomes. If fitness is a probabilistic or statistical quantity, how is it to be defined in general theoretical contexts? How can it be measured? Can (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  8.  11
    Samir Okasha & Cédric Paternotte (2014). Adaptation, Fitness and the Selection-Optimality Links. Biology and Philosophy 29 (2):225-232.
    We critically examine a number of aspects of Grafen’s ‘formal Darwinism’ project. We argue that Grafen’s ‘selection-optimality’ links do not quite succeed in vindicating the working assumption made by behavioural ecologists and others—that selection will lead organisms to exhibit adaptive behaviour—since these links hold true even in the presence of strong genetic and developmental constraints. However we suggest that the selection-optimality links can profitably be viewed as constituting an axiomatic theory of fitness. Finally, we compare Grafen’s project with Fisher’s (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  9.  8
    Warren J. Ewens (2014). Grafen, the Price Equations, Fitness Maximization, Optimisation and the Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection. Biology and Philosophy 29 (2):197-205.
    This paper is a commentary on the focal article by Grafen and on earlier papers of his on which many of the results of this focal paper depend. Thus it is in effect a commentary on the “formal Darwinian project”, the focus of this sequence of papers. Several problems with this sequence are raised and discussed. The first of these concerns fitness maximization. It is often claimed in these papers that natural selection leads to a maximization of fitness (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  10.  8
    Laurent Lehmann & François Rousset (2014). Fitness, Inclusive Fitness, and Optimization. Biology and Philosophy 29 (2):181-195.
    Individual-as-maximizing agent analogies result in a simple understanding of the functioning of the biological world. Identifying the conditions under which individuals can be regarded as fitness maximizing agents is thus of considerable interest to biologists. Here, we compare different concepts of fitness maximization, and discuss within a single framework the relationship between Hamilton’s (J Theor Biol 7:1–16, 1964) model of social interactions, Grafen’s (J Evol Biol 20:1243–1254, 2007a) formal Darwinism project, and the idea of evolutionary stable strategies. We (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  11.  94
    Andrew Shaner, Geoffrey Miller & Jim Mintz (2008). Autism as the Low-Fitness Extreme of a Parentally Selected Fitness Indicator. Human Nature 19 (4):389-413.
    Siblings compete for parental care and feeding, while parents must allocate scarce resources to those offspring most likely to survive and reproduce. This could cause offspring to evolve traits that advertise health, and thereby attract parental resources. For example, experimental evidence suggests that bright orange filaments covering the heads of North American coot chicks may have evolved for this fitness-advertising purpose. Could any human mental disorders be the equivalent of dull filaments in coot chicks—low-fitness extremes of mental abilities (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  47
    J. H. van Hateren, Consciousness Results When Communication Modifies the Form of Self-Estimated Fitness.
    The origin and development of consciousness is poorly understood. Although it is clearly a naturalistic phenomenon evolved through Darwinian evolution, explaining it in terms of physicochemical, neural, or symbolic mechanisms remains elusive. Here I propose that two steps had to be taken in its evolution. First, living systems evolved an intrinsic goal-directedness by internalizing Darwinian fitness as a self-estimated fitness. The self-estimated fitness participates in a feedback loop that effectively produces intrinsic meaning in the organism. Second, animals (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  13.  58
    Marshall Abrams (2009). What Determines Biological Fitness? The Problem of the Reference Environment. Synthese 166 (1):21 - 40.
    Organisms' environments are thought to play a fundamental role in determining their fitness and hence in natural selection. Existing intuitive conceptions of environment are sufficient for biological practice. I argue, however, that attempts to produce a general characterization of fitness and natural selection are incomplete without the help of general conceptions of what conditions are included in the environment. Thus there is a "problem of the reference environment"—more particularly, problems of specifying principles which pick out those environmental conditions (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  14.  45
    Costas B. Krimbas (2004). On Fitness. Biology and Philosophy 19 (2):185-203.
    The concept of fitness, central to population genetics and to the synthetic theory of evolution, is discussed. After a historical introduction on the origin of this concept, the current meaning of it in population genetics is examined: a cause of the selective process and its quantification. Several difficulties arise for its exact definition. Three adequacy criteria for such a definition are formulated. It is shown that it is impossible to formulate an adequate definition of fitness respecting these criteria. (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  15.  5
    Hillard S. Kaplan, Jane B. Lancaster, Sara E. Johnson & John A. Bock (1995). Does Observed Fertility Maximize Fitness Among New Mexican Men? Human Nature 6 (4):325-360.
    Our objective is to test an optimality model of human fertility that specifies the behavioral requirements for fitness maximization in order (a) to determine whether current behavior does maximize fitness and, if not, (b) to use the specific nature of the behavioral deviations from fitness maximization towards the development of models of evolved proximate mechanisms that may have maximized fitness in the past but lead to deviations under present conditions. To test the model we use data (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   13 citations  
  16. Benjamin Kerr & Peter Godfrey-Smith (2002). On Price's Equation and Average Fitness. Biology and Philosophy 17 (4):551-565.
    A number of recent discussions have argued that George Price's equationfor representing evolutionary change is a powerful and illuminatingtool, especially in the context of debates about multiple levels ofselection. Our paper dissects Price's equation in detail, and comparesit to another statistical tool: the calculation and comparison ofaverage fitnesses. The relations between Price's equation and equationsfor evolutionary change using average fitness are closer than issometimes supposed. The two approaches achieve a similar kind ofstatistical summary of one generation of change, and (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  17.  35
    Grant Ramsey (2013). Can Fitness Differences Be a Cause of Evolution? Philosophy and Theory in Biology 5 (20130604).
    Biological fitness is a foundational concept in the theory of natural selection. Natural selection is often defined in terms of fitness differences as “any consistent difference in fitness (i.e., survival and reproduction) among phenotypically different biological entities” (Futuyma 1998, 349). And in Lewontin’s (1970) classic articulation of the theory of natural selection, he lists fitness differences as one of the necessary conditions for evolution by natural selection to occur. Despite this foundational position of fitness, there (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  18.  59
    Henry C. Byerly & Richard E. Michod (1991). Fitness and Evolutionary Explanation. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 6 (1):45-53.
    Recent philosophical discussions have failed to clarify the roles of the concept fitness in evolutionary theory. Neither the propensity interpretation of fitness nor the construal of fitness as a primitive theoretical term succeed in explicating the empirical content and explanatory power of the theory of natural selection. By appealing to the structure of simple mathematical models of natural selection, we separate out different contrasts which have tended to confuse discussions of fitness: the distinction between what (...) is defined as versus what fitness is a function of, the contrast between adaptedness as an overall property of organisms and specific adaptive capacities, the distinction between actual and potential reproductive success, the role of chance versus systematic causal relations, fitness as applied to organisms as opposed to fitness applied to genotype classes, heritable adaptive capacities of genotypes as opposed to relations between genotypes and the environment. We show how failure to distinguish and properly interrelate these different aspects of “fitness” adds confusion to a number of already complex issues concerning evolutionary theory. On the basis of our discussion of these different aspects of “fitness”, we propose a terminology which makes the necessary distinctions. A central result of our analysis is that the concept of fitness as the overall adaptedness of organisms does not enter into the causal structure of evolutionary explanation, at least to the extent that this structure is represented in the mathematical models of natural selection. (shrink)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  19.  19
    Lasse Gerrits & Peter Marks (2015). The Evolution of Wright’s Adaptive Field to Contemporary Interpretations and Uses of Fitness Landscapes in the Social Sciences. Biology and Philosophy 30 (4):459-479.
    The concepts of adaptation and fitness have such an appeal that they have been used in other scientific domains, including the social sciences. One particular aspect of this theory transfer concerns the so-called fitness landscape models. At first sight, fitness landscapes visualize how an agent, of any kind, relates to its environment, how its position is conditional because of the mutual interaction with other agents, and the potential routes towards improved fitness. The allure of fitness (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20.  37
    Patricia Sheridan (2007). The Metaphysical Morality of Francis Hutcheson: A Consideration of Hutcheson's Critique of Moral Fitness Theory. Sophia 46 (3):263-275.
    Hutcheson’s theory of morality shares far more common ground with Clarke’s morality than is generally acknowledged. In fact, Hutcheson’s own view of his innovations in moral theory suggest that he understood moral sense theory more as an elaboration and partial correction to Clarkean fitness theory than as an outright rejection of it. My aim in this paper will be to illuminate what I take to be Hutcheson’s grounds for adopting this attitude toward Clarkean fitness theory. In so doing, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21.  8
    Herbert Gintis (2014). Inclusive Fitness and the Sociobiology of the Genome. Biology and Philosophy 29 (4):477-515.
    Inclusive fitness theory provides conditions for the evolutionary success of a gene. These conditions ensure that the gene is selfish in the sense of Dawkins (The selfish gene, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1976): genes do not and cannot sacrifice their own fitness on behalf of the reproductive population. Therefore, while natural selection explains the appearance of design in the living world (Dawkins in The blind watchmaker: why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design, W. W. Norton, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22.  8
    Johannes Hönekopp, Tobias Bartholomé & Gregor Jansen (2004). Facial Attractiveness, Symmetry, and Physical Fitness in Young Women. Human Nature 15 (2):147-167.
    This study explores the evolutionary-based hypothesis that facial attractiveness (a guiding force in mate selection) is a cue for physical fitness (presumably an important contributor to mate value in ancestral times). Since fluctuating asymmetry, a measure of developmental stability, is known to be a valid cue for fitness in several biological domains, we scrutinized facial asymmetry as a potential mediator between attractiveness and fitness. In our sample of young women, facial beauty indeed indicated physical fitness. The (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23.  17
    James Maclaurin, Fitness: Philosophical Problems. Encyclopedia of Life Sciences.
    A philosophical discussion of conceptual and theoretical issues raised by the scientific use of the term ‘fitness’ to describe a property of evolving systems.
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24.  11
    J. G. Ollason (1991). What is This Stuff Called Fitness? Biology and Philosophy 6 (1):81-92.
    This paper considers a variety of attempts to define fitness in such a way as to defend the theory of evolution by natural selection from the criticism that it is a circular argument. Each of the definitions is shown to be inconsistent with the others. The paper argues that the environment in which an animal evolves can be defined only with respect to the properties of the phenotype of the animal and that it is therefore not illuminating to try (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25.  16
    Tom Settle (1993). 'Fitness' and 'Altruism': Traps for the Unwary, Bystander and Biologist Alike. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 8 (1):61-83.
    At one level, this paper is a lament and a warning. I lament biologists borrowing well-known terms and then drastically and awkwardly changing their meanings, and I warn about the mischief this does. Biology''s public image is at stake, as is its general usefulness. At another level, I attempt to clarify the misnamed concepts, beyond what has been achieved in recent philosophical writings. This helps to account for the mischief, and to see how it might be avoidable. But the most (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   36 citations  
  26.  44
    Sandra D. Mitchell (1995). Function, Fitness and Disposition. Biology and Philosophy 10 (1):39-54.
    In this paper I discuss recent debates concerning etiological theories of functions. I defend an etiological theory against two criticisms, namely the ability to account for malfunction, and the problem of structural doubles. I then consider the arguments provided by Bigelow and Pargetter (1987) for a more forward looking account of functions as propensities or dispositions. I argue that their approach fails to address the explanatory problematic for which etiological theories were developed.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  27.  16
    Wim Hordijk & Stuart A. Kauffman (2005). Correlation Analysis of Coupled Fitness Landscapes. Complexity 10 (6):41-49.
  28.  21
    Jonathan Michael Kaplan (2013). “Relevant Similarity” and the Causes of Biological Evolution: Selection, Fitness, and Statistically Abstractive Explanations. Biology and Philosophy 28 (3):405-421.
    Matthen (Philos Sci 76(4):464–487, 2009) argues that explanations of evolutionary change that appeal to natural selection are statistically abstractive explanations, explanations that ignore some possible explanatory partitions that in fact impact the outcome. This recognition highlights a difficulty with making selective analyses fully rigorous. Natural selection is not about the details of what happens to any particular organism, nor, by extension, to the details of what happens in any particular population. Since selective accounts focus on tendencies, those factors that impact (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29.  10
    B. Pawłowski & R. I. M. Dunbar (2005). Waist-to-Hip Ratio Versus Body Mass Index as Predictors of Fitness in Women. Human Nature 16 (2):164-177.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30.  3
    I. G. Campbell (1942). A Study of the Fitness of Color Combinations in Duple and in Triple Rhythm, to Line Designs. Journal of Experimental Psychology 30 (4):311.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31. Mohan Matthen & André Ariew (2002). Two Ways of Thinking About Fitness and Natural Selection. Journal of Philosophy 99 (2):55-83.
    How do fitness and natural selection relate to other evolutionary factors like architectural constraint, mode of reproduction, and drift? In one way of thinking, drawn from Newtonian dynamics, fitness is one force driving evolutionary change and added to other factors. In another, drawn from statistical thermodynamics, it is a statistical trend that manifests itself in natural selection histories. It is argued that the first model is incoherent, the second appropriate; a hierarchical realization model is proposed as a basis (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   64 citations  
  32. Denis M. Walsh (2010). Not a Sure Thing: Fitness, Probability, and Causation. Philosophy of Science 77 (2):147-171.
    In evolutionary biology changes in population structure are explained by citing trait fitness distribution. I distinguish three interpretations of fitness explanations—the Two‐Factor Model, the Single‐Factor Model, and the Statistical Interpretation—and argue for the last of these. These interpretations differ in their degrees of causal commitment. The first two hold that trait fitness distribution causes population change. Trait fitness explanations, according to these interpretations, are causal explanations. The last maintains that trait fitness distribution correlates with population (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   18 citations  
  33.  74
    Frédéric Bouchard & Alex Rosenberg (2004). Fitness, Probability and the Principles of Natural Selection. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (4):693-712.
    We argue that a fashionable interpretation of the theory of natural selection as a claim exclusively about populations is mistaken. The interpretation rests on adopting an analysis of fitness as a probabilistic propensity which cannot be substantiated, draws parallels with thermodynamics which are without foundations, and fails to do justice to the fundamental distinction between drift and selection. This distinction requires a notion of fitness as a pairwise comparison between individuals taken two at a time, and so vitiates (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   36 citations  
  34. Marian S. Dawkins (1990). From an Animal's Point of View: Motivation, Fitness, and Animal Welfare. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13 (1):1-9.
    To study animal welfare empirically we need an objective basis for deciding when an animal is suffering. Suffering includes a wide range ofunpleasant emotional states such as fear, boredom, pain, and hunger. Suffering has evolved as a mechanism for avoiding sources ofdanger and threats to fitness. Captive animals often suffer in situations in which they are prevented from doing something that they are highly motivated to do. The an animal is prepared to pay to attain or to escape a (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   54 citations  
  35.  60
    Frédéric Bouchard (2008). Causal Processes, Fitness, and the Differential Persistence of Lineages. Philosophy of Science 75 (5):560-570.
    Ecological fitness has been suggested to provide a unifying definition of fitness. However, a metric for this notion of fitness was in most cases unavailable except by proxy with differential reproductive success. In this article, I show how differential persistence of lineages can be used as a way to assess ecological fitness. This view is inspired by a better understanding of the evolution of some clonal plants, colonial organisms, and ecosystems. Differential persistence shows the limitation of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   20 citations  
  36. André Ariew & R. C. Lewontin (2004). The Confusions of Fitness. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (2):347-363.
    The central point of this essay is to demonstrate the incommensurability of ‘Darwinian fitness’ with the numeric values associated with reproductive rates used in population genetics. While sometimes both are called ‘fitness’, they are distinct concepts coming from distinct explanatory schemes. Further, we try to outline a possible answer to the following question: from the natural properties of organisms and a knowledge of their environment, can we construct an algorithm for a particular kind of organismic life-history pattern that (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   25 citations  
  37. D. M. Walsh (1996). Fitness and Function. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47 (4):553-574.
    According to historical theories of biological function, a trait's function is determined by natural selection in the past. I argue that, in addition to historical functions, ahistorical functions ought to be recognized. I propose a theory of biological function which accommodates both. The function of a trait is the way it contributes to fitness and fitness can only be determined relative to a selective regime. Therefore, the function of a trait can only be specified relative to a selective (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   32 citations  
  38. Elliott Sober, The Two Faces of Fitness.
    The concept of fitness began its career in biology long before evolutionary theory was mathematized. Fitness was used to describe an organism’s vigor, or the degree to which organisms “fit” into their environments. An organism’s success in avoiding predators and in building a nest obviously contribute to its fitness and to the fitness of its offspring, but the peacock’s gaudy tail seemed to be in an entirely different line of work. Fitness, as a term in (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   14 citations  
  39. Susan K. Mills & John H. Beatty (1979). The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness. Philosophy of Science 46 (2):263-286.
    The concept of "fitness" is a notion of central importance to evolutionary theory. Yet the interpretation of this concept and its role in explanations of evolutionary phenomena have remained obscure. We provide a propensity interpretation of fitness, which we argue captures the intended reference of this term as it is used by evolutionary theorists. Using the propensity interpretation of fitness, we provide a Hempelian reconstruction of explanations of evolutionary phenomena, and we show why charges of circularity which (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   61 citations  
  40. G. Ramsey (2013). Organisms, Traits, and Population Subdivisions: Two Arguments Against the Causal Conception of Fitness? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (3):589-608.
    A major debate in the philosophy of biology centers on the question of how we should understand the causal structure of natural selection. This debate is polarized into the causal and statistical positions. The main arguments from the statistical side are that a causal construal of the theory of natural selection's central concept, fitness, either (i) leads to inaccurate predictions about population dynamics, or (ii) leads to an incoherent set of causal commitments. In this essay, I argue that neither (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  41.  20
    Pierrick Bourrat (2015). Levels, Time and Fitness in Evolutionary Transitions in Individuality. Philosophy and Theory in Biology 7 (20150505).
    Yes, fitness is the central concept of evolutionary biology, but it is an elusive concept. Almost everyone who looks at it seriously comes out in a different place.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  42.  20
    Elliott Sober (2013). Trait Fitness is Not a Propensity, but Fitness Variation Is. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (3):336-341.
    The propensity interpretation of fitness draws on the propensity interpretation of probability, but advocates of the former have not attended sufficiently to problems with the latter. The causal power of C to bring about E is not well-represented by the conditional probability Pr. Since the viability fitness of trait T is the conditional probability Pr, the viability fitness of the trait does not represent the degree to which having the trait causally promotes surviving. The same point holds (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  43.  97
    Marshall Abrams (2009). Fitness “Kinematics”: Biological Function, Altruism, and Organism–Environment Development. Biology and Philosophy 24 (4):487-504.
    It’s recently been argued that biological fitness can’t change over the course of an organism’s life as a result of organisms’ behaviors. However, some characterizations of biological function and biological altruism tacitly or explicitly assume that an effect of a trait can change an organism’s fitness. In the first part of the paper, I explain that the core idea of changing fitness can be understood in terms of conditional probabilities defined over sequences of events in an organism’s (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  44.  91
    Alex Rosenberg & Frederic Bouchard (2005). Matthen and Ariew's Obituary for Fitness: Reports of its Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 20 (2-3):343-353.
    Philosophers of biology have been absorbed by the problem of defining evolutionary fitness since Darwin made it central to biological explanation. The apparent problem is obvious. Define fitness as some biologists implicitly do, in terms of actual survival and reproduction, and the principle of natural selection turns into an empty tautology: those organisms which survive and reproduce in larger numbers, survive and reproduce in larger numbers. Accordingly, many writers have sought to provide a definition for ‘fitness’ which (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  45.  45
    Jun Otsuka, Trin Turner, Colin Allen & Elisabeth Lloyd (2011). Why the Causal View of Fitness Survives. Philosophy of Science 78 (2):209-224.
    We critically examine Denis Walsh’s latest attack on the causalist view of fitness. Relying on Judea Pearl’s Sure-Thing Principle and geneticist John Gillespie’s model for fitness, Walsh has argued that the causal interpretation of fitness results in a reductio. We show that his conclusion only follows from misuse of the models, that is, (1) the disregard of the real biological bearing of the population-size parameter in Gillespie’s model and (2) the confusion of the distinction between ordinary probability (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  46.  33
    Grant Ramsey & Andreas De Block (forthcoming). Is Cultural Fitness Hopelessly Confused? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axv047.
    Fitness is a central concept in evolutionary theory. Just as it is central to biological evolution, so, it seems, it should be central to cultural evolutionary theory. But importing the biological fitness concept to CET is no straightforward task—there are many features unique to cultural evolution that make this difficult. This has led some theorists to argue that there are fundamental problems with cultural fitness that render it hopelessly confused. In this essay, we defend the coherency of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  13
    Grant Ramsey (2006). Block Fitness. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 37 (3):484-498.
    There are three related criteria that a concept of fitness should be able to meet: it should render the principle of natural selection non-tautologous and it should be explanatory and predictive. I argue that for fitness to be able to fulfill these criteria, it cannot be a property that changes over the course of an individual’s life. Rather, I introduce a fitness concept—Block Fitness—and argue that an individual’s genes and environment fix its fitness in such (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  48.  31
    Alexander Rosenberg (1983). Fitness. Journal of Philosophy 80 (8):457-473.
    The diversity, complexity and adaptation of the biological realm is evident. Until Darwin, the best explanation for these three features of the biological was the conclusion of the “argument from design.” Darwin's theory of natural selection provides an explanation of all three of these features of the biological realm without adverting to some mysterious designing entity. But this explanation's success turns on the meaning of its central explanatory concept, ‘fitness’. Moreover, since Darwinian theory provides the resources for a purely (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   33 citations  
  49.  26
    Pierrick Bourrat (2015). Levels of Selection Are Artefacts of Different Fitness Temporal Measures. Ratio 28 (1):40-50.
    In this paper I argue against the claim, recently put forward by some philosophers of biology and evolutionary biologists, that there can be two or more ontologically distinct levels of selection. I show by comparing the fitness of individuals with that of collectives of individuals in the same environment and over the same period of time – as required to decide if one or more levels of selection is acting in a population – that the selection of collectives is (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  50.  30
    Isabelle Drouet & Francesca Merlin (2015). The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness and the Propensity Interpretation of Probability. Erkenntnis 80 (3):457-468.
    The paper provides a new critical perspective on the propensity interpretation of fitness, by investigating its relationship to the propensity interpretation of probability. Two main conclusions are drawn. First, the claim that fitness is a propensity cannot be understood properly: fitness is not a propensity in the sense prescribed by the propensity interpretation of probability. Second, this interpretation of probability is inessential for explanations proposed by the PIF in evolutionary biology. Consequently, interpreting the probabilistic dimension of (...) in terms of propensities is neither a strong motivation in favor of this interpretation, nor a possible target for substantial criticism. (shrink)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
1 — 50 / 719