Search results for 'levels of selection' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Massimo Pigliucci (2010). Okasha's Evolution and the Levels of Selection: Toward a Broader Conception of Theoretical Biology. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 25 (3):405-415.score: 720.0
    The debate about the levels of selection has been one of the most controversial both in evolutionary biology and in philosophy of science. Okasha’s book makes the sort of contribution that simply will not be able to be ignored by anyone interested in this field for many years to come. However, my interest here is in highlighting some examples of how Okasha goes about discussing his material to suggest that his book is part of an increasingly interesting trend (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Samir Okasha (2005). Maynard Smith on the Levels of Selection Question. Biology and Philosophy 20 (5):989-1010.score: 720.0
    The levels of selection problem was central to Maynard Smith’s work throughout his career. This paper traces Maynard Smith’s views on the levels of selection, from his objections to group selection in the 1960s to his concern with the major evolutionary transitions in the 1990s. The relations between Maynard Smith’s position and those of Hamilton and G.C. Williams are explored, as is Maynard Smith’s dislike of the Price equation approach to multi-level selection. Maynard Smith’s (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Deborah E. Shelton & Richard E. Michod (2014). Levels of Selection and the Formal Darwinism Project. Biology and Philosophy 29 (2):217-224.score: 720.0
    Understanding good design requires addressing the question of what units undergo natural selection, thereby becoming adapted. There is, therefore, a natural connection between the formal Darwinism project (which aims to connect population genetics with the evolution of design and fitness maximization) and levels of selection issues. We argue that the formal Darwinism project offers contradictory and confusing lines of thinking concerning level(s) of selection. The project favors multicellular organisms over both the lower (cell) and higher (social (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Samir Okasha (2004). The “Averaging Fallacy” and the Levels of Selection. Biology and Philosophy 19 (2):167-184.score: 688.0
    This paper compares two well-known arguments in the units of selection literature, one due to , the other due to . Both arguments concern the legitimacy of averaging fitness values across contexts and making inferences about the level of selection on that basis. The first three sections of the paper shows that the two arguments are incompatible if taken at face value, their apparent similarity notwithstanding. If we accept Sober and Lewontin's criterion for when averaging genic fitnesses across (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Ron McClamrock (1995). Screening-Off and the Levels of Selection. Erkenntnis 42 (1):107 - 112.score: 624.0
    In The Levels of Selection (Brandon, 1984), Robert Brandon provides a suggestive but ultimately unsuccessful attempt to use the probabilistic notion ofscreening off in providing a schema for dealing with an aspect of the units of selection question in the philosophy of biology. I characterize that failure, and suggest a revision and expansion of Brandon's account which addresses its key shortcoming.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Alejandro Rosas (2009). Levels of Selection in Synergy. Teorema 28 (2):135-150.score: 573.0
    Individual and group selection are usually conceived as opposed evolutionary processes. Though cases of synergy are occasionally recognized, the evolutionary importance of synergy is largely ignored. However, synergy is the plausible explanation for the evolution of collectives as higher level individuals i.e., collectives acting as adaptive units, e.g., genomes and colonies of social insects. It rests on the suppression of the predictable tendency of evolutionary units to benefit at the expense of other units or of the wholes they contribute (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Samir Okasha (2006/2008). Evolution and the Levels of Selection. Oxford University Press.score: 558.0
    Does natural selection act primarily on individual organisms, on groups, on genes, or on whole species? The question of levels of selection - on which biologists and philosophers have long disagreed - is central to evolutionary theory and to the philosophy of biology. Samir Okasha's comprehensive analysis gives a clear account of the philosophical issues at stake in the current debate.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Robert A. Wilson (2003). Pluralism, Entwinement, and the Levels of Selection. Philosophy of Science 70 (3):531-552.score: 549.0
    This paper distinguishes and critiques several forms of pluralism about the levels of selection, and introduces a novel way of thinking about the biological properties and processes typically conceptualized in terms of distinct levels. In particular, "levels" should be thought of as being entwined or fused. Since the pluralism discussed is held by divergent theorists, the argument has implications for many positions in the debate over the units of selection. And since the key points on (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Robert Brandon (1982). The Levels of Selection. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:315 - 323.score: 549.0
    In this paper Wimsatt's analysis of units of selection is taken as defining the units of selection question. A definition of levels of selection is offered and it is shown that the levels of selection question is quite different from the units of selection question. Some of the relations between units and levels are briefly explored. It is argued that the levels of selection question is the question relevant to explanatory (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Stephen Jay Gould & Elisabeth A. Lloyd (1999). Individuality and Adaptation Across Levels of Selection: How Shall We Name and Generalize the Unit of Darwinism? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96 (21):11904-09.score: 546.0
    Two major clarifications have greatly abetted the understanding and fruitful expansion of the theory of natural selection in recent years: the acknowledgment that interactors, not replicators, constitute the causal unit of selection; and the recognition that interactors are Darwinian individuals, and that such individuals exist with potency at several levels of organization (genes, organisms, demes, and species in particular), thus engendering a rich hierarchical theory of selection in contrast with Darwin’s own emphasis on the organismic level. (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Elliott Sober (2011). Realism, Conventionalism, and Causal Decomposition in Units of Selection: Reflections on Samir Okasha's Evolution and the Levels of Selection. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 82 (1):221-231.score: 540.0
    I discuss two subjects in Samir Okasha’s excellent book, Evolution and the Levels of Selection. In consonance with Okasha’s critique of the conventionalist view of the units of selection problem, I argue that conventionalists have not attended to what realists mean by group, individual, and genic selection. In connection with Okasha’s discussion of the Price equation and contextual analysis, I discuss whether the existence of these two quantitative frameworks is a challenge to realism.
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Samir Okasha (2011). Précis of Evolution and the Levels of Selection. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 82 (1):212-220.score: 540.0
    The ‘levels of selection’ question is one of the most fundamental in evolutionary biology, for it arises directly from the logic of Darwinism. As is well-known, the principle of natural selection is entirely abstract; it says that any entities satisfying certain conditions will evolve by natural selection, whatever those entities are. (These conditions are: variability, associated fitness differences, and heritability (cf. Lewontin 1970).) This fact, when combined with the fact that the biological world is hierarchically structured, (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Massimo Pigliucci (2009). Samir Okasha: Evolution and the Levels of Selection. Biology and Philosophy 24 (4):551-560.score: 540.0
    The debate about the levels of selection has been one of the most controversial both in evolutionary biology and in philosophy of science. Okasha’s book makes the sort of contribution that simply will not be able to be ignored by anyone interested in this field for many years to come. However, my interest here is in highlighting some examples of how Okasha goes about discussing his material to suggest that his book is part of an increasingly interesting trend (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Pierrick Bourrat (2014). Levels of Selection Are Artefacts of Different Fitness Temporal Measures. Ratio 27 (3).score: 540.0
    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 (...) of collectives is a by-product of selection at the individual level; thus, talking about two or more levels of selection represents merely a different perspective on one and the same process. (shrink)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. W. David Pierce (2001). Activity Anorexia: Biological, Behavioral, and Neural Levels of Selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):551-552.score: 531.0
    Activity anorexia illustrates selection of behavior at the biological, behavioral, and neural levels. Based on evolutionary history, food depletion increases the reinforcement value of physical activity that, in turn, decreases the reinforcement effectiveness of eating – resulting in activity anorexia. Neural opiates participate in the selection of physical activity during periods of food depletion.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Elisabeth Lloyd, Units and Levels of Selection. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.score: 501.0
    The theory of evolution by natural selection is, perhaps, the crowning intellectual achievement of the biological sciences. There is, however, considerable debate about which entity or entities are selected and what it is that fits them for that role. This article aims to clarify what is at issue in these debates by identifying four distinct, though often confused, concerns and then identifying how the debates on what constitute the units of selection depend to a significant degree on which (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Joachim Dagg (2012). The Paradox of Sexual Reproduction and the Levels of Selection: Can Sociobiology Shed a Light? Philosophy and Theory in Biology 4 (20130604).score: 501.0
    The group selection controversy largely focuses on altruism (e.g., Wilson 1983; Lloyd 2001; Shavit 2004; Okasha 2006, 173ff; Borrello 2010; Leigh 2010; Rosas 2010; Hamilton and Dimond in press). Multilevel selection theory is a resolution of this controversy. Whereas kin selection partitions inclusive fitness into direct and indirect components (via influencing the replication of copies of genes in other individuals), multilevel selection considers within-group and between-group components of fitness (Gardner et al. 2011; Lion et al. 2011). (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Peter Godfrey-Smith (2008). Varieties of Population Structure and the Levels of Selection. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (1):25-50.score: 495.0
    Group-structured populations, of the kind prominent in discussions of multilevel selection, are contrasted with ‘neighbor-structured’ populations. I argue that it is a necessary condition on multilevel description of a selection process that there should be a nonarbitrary division of the population into equivalence classes (or an approximation to this situation). The discussion is focused via comparisons between two famous problem cases involving group structure (altruism and heterozygote advantage) and two neighbor-structured cases that resemble them. Conclusions are also drawn (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Sahotra Sarkar (2008). A Note on Frequency Dependence and the Levels/Units of Selection. Biology and Philosophy 23 (2):217-228.score: 492.0
    On the basis of distinctions between those properties of entities that can be defined without reference to other entities and those that (in different ways) cannot, this note argues that non-trivial forms of frequency-dependent selection of entities should be interpreted as selection occurring at a level higher than that of those entities. It points out that, except in degenerately simple cases, evolutionary game-theoretic models of selection are not models of individual selection. Similarly, models of genotypic (...) such as heterosis cannot be legitimately interpreted as models of genic selection. The analysis presented here supports the views that: (i) selection should be viewed as a multi-level process; (ii) upper-level selection is ubiquitous; (iii) kin selection should be viewed as a type of group selection rather than individual selection; and (iv) inclusive fitness is not an individual property. (shrink)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Michael K. McBeath & Thomas G. Sugar (2005). Natural Selection of Asymmetric Traits Operates at Multiple Levels. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (4):605-606.score: 492.0
    Natural selection of asymmetric traits operates at multiple levels. Some asymmetric traits (like having a dominant eye) are tied to more universal aspects of the environment and are coded genetically, while others (like pedestrian turning biases) are tied to more ephemeral patterns and are largely learned. Species-wide trends of asymmetry can be better modeled when different levels of natural selection are specified.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Wim J. Steen & Bart Voorzanger (1984). Methodological Problems in Evolutionary Biology III. Selection and Levels of Organization. Acta Biotheoretica 33 (3).score: 492.0
    Apparently factual disagreement on the level(s) at which selection operates often results from different interpretations of the term selection. Attempts to resolve terminological problems must come to grips with a dilemma: a narrow interpretation of selection may lead to a restricted view on evolution; a broader, less precise, definition may wrongly suggest that selection is the centre of a unified, integrated theory of evolution. Different concepts of selection, therefore, should carefully be kept apart.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Robert N. Brandon, Janis Antonovics, Richard Burian, Scott Carson, Greg Cooper, Paul Sheldon Davies, Christopher Horvath, Brent D. Mishler, Robert C. Richardson, Kelly Smith & Peter Thrall (1994). Sober on Brandon on Screening-Off and the Levels of Selection. Philosophy of Science 61 (3):475-486.score: 468.0
    Sober (1992) has recently evaluated Brandon's (1982, 1990; see also 1985, 1988) use of Salmon's (1971) concept of screening-off in the philosophy of biology. He critiques three particular issues, each of which will be considered in this discussion.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Rasmus Grønfeldt Winther (2005). Evolutionary Developmental Biology Meets Levels of Selection: Modular Integration or Competition, or Both? In Werner Callebaut & Diego Rasskin-Gutman (eds.), Modularity. Understanding the Development and Evolution of Natural Complex Systems. MIT Press.score: 459.0
  24. Alirio Rosales (2008). Samir Okasha:Evolution and the Levels of Selection,:Evolution and the Levels of Selection. Philosophy of Science 75 (2):254-256.score: 459.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Janis Antonovics, R. M. Burian, S. Carson, G. Coper, P. S. Davies, C. Hovarth, B. D. Mishler, R. C. Richardson, S. Smith & P. H. Thrall (1994). Sober on Brandon on Screening-Off and the Levels of Selection. Philosophy of Science 61:4754486.score: 459.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Veronica J. Dark, William A. Johnston, Marina Myles-Worsley & Martha J. Farah (1985). Levels of Selection and Capacity Limits. Journal of Experimental Psychology 114 (4).score: 459.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Stephen M. Downes (2010). Moving Past the Levels of Selection Debates: Review of Samir Okasha's Evolution and the Levels of Selection. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 25 (3):417-423.score: 450.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Samir Okasha (2006). The Levels of Selection Debate: Philosophical Issues. Philosophy Compass 1 (1):74–85.score: 450.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Stephen M. Downes (2009). Moving Past the Levels of Selection Debates. Biology and Philosophy 24 (5):703-709.score: 450.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. M. Haber (2008). Review: Samir Okasha: Evolution and the Levels of Selection. [REVIEW] Mind 117 (468):1116-1119.score: 450.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. P. Forber (2008). Evolution and the Levels of Selection. Philosophical Review 117 (4):626-630.score: 450.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Simon M. Huttegger (2007). Selection at Multiple Levels: Evolution and the Levels of Selection, Samir Okasha . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, (288 Pp; £32.00 Hbk; ISBN 978-0-19-926797-2). [REVIEW] Biological Theory 2 (4):429-431.score: 450.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Jonathan Michael Kaplan (2007). Review of Samir Okasha, Evolution and the Levels of Selection. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2007 (4).score: 450.0
  34. David Sloan Wilson (1994). Levels of Selection: An Alternative to Individualism in Biology and the Human Sciences. In E. Sober (ed.), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology. The Mit Press. Bradford Books.score: 450.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Gerald Borgia (1979). Levels of Selection and Human Ethology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2 (1):30.score: 450.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Mark Borrello (2008). Dogma, Heresy, and Conversion: Vero Copner Wynne-Edwards's Crusade and the Levels-of-Selection Debate. In Oren Harman & Michael Dietrich (eds.), Rebels, Mavericks, and Heretics in Biology. Yale University Press. 213.score: 450.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Lee Alan Dugatkin & David Sloan Wilson (1993). Language and Levels of Selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 (4):701.score: 450.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. D. L. Hull, R. E. Langman, S. S. Glenn & W. D. Pierce (2001). A General Account of Selection: Biology, Immunology, and Behavior-Open Peer Commentary-Activity Anorexia: Biological, Behavioral, and Neural Levels of Selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):551-551.score: 450.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Marvin R. Lamb, E. William Yund & Heather M. Pond (1999). Is Attentional Selection to Different Levels of Hierarchical Structure Based on Spatial Frequency? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 128 (1):88.score: 444.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Matthew H. Haber & Andrew Hamilton (2009). Clade Selection and Levels of Lineage: A Reply to Rieppel. Biological Theory 4 (2):214-218.score: 435.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Donald T. Campbell (1981). Levels of Organization, Selection, and Information Storage in Biological and Social Evaluation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4 (2):236.score: 435.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Joel Cracraft (1993). Domains of Selection Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges George C. Williams. Bioscience 43 (9):641-642.score: 435.0
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Robert N. Brandon (1999). The Units of Selection Revisited: The Modules of Selection. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 14 (2):167-180.score: 432.0
    Richard Lewontin's (1970) early work on the units of selection initiated the conceptual and theoretical investigations that have led to the hierarchical perspective on selection that has reached near consensus status today. This paper explores other aspects of his work, work on what he termed continuity and quasi-independence, that connect to contemporary explorations of modularity in development and evolution. I characterize such modules and argue that they are the true units of selection in that they are what (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Thomas C. Kane, Robert C. Richardson & Daniel W. Fong (1990). The Phenotype as the Level of Selection: Cave Organisms as Model Systems. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:151 - 164.score: 387.0
    Selection operates at many levels. Robert Brandon has distinguished the question of the level of selection from the unit of selection, arguing that the phenotype is commonly the target of selection, whatever the unit of selection might be. He uses "screening off" as a criterion for distinguishing the level of selection. Cave animals show a common morphological pattern which includes hypertrophy of some structures and reduction or loss of others. In a study (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. William C. Wimsatt (1980). The Units of Selection and the Structure of the Multi-Level Genome. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:122 - 183.score: 381.0
    The reductionistic vision of evolutionary theory, "the gene's eye view of evolution" is the dominant view among evolutionary biologists today. On this view, the gene is the only unit with sufficient stability to act as a unit of selection, with individuals and groups being more ephemeral units of function, but not of selection. This view is argued to be incorrect, on several grounds. The empirical and theoretical bases for the existence of higher-level units of selection are explored, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. John Damuth & I. Lorraine Heisler (1988). Alternative Formulations of Multilevel Selection. Biology and Philosophy 3 (4):407-430.score: 351.0
    Hierarchical expansions of the theory of natural selection exist in two distinct bodies of thought in evolutionary biology, the group selection and the species selection traditions. Both traditions share the point of view that the principles of natural selection apply at levels of biological organization above the level of the individual organism. This leads them both to considermultilevel selection situations, where selection is occurring simultaneously at more than one level. Impeding unification of the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. R. Goode & P. E. Griffiths (1995). The Misuse of Sober's Selection for/Selection of Distinction. Biology and Philosophy 10 (1):99-108.score: 351.0
    Elliott Sober''s selection for/selection of distinction has been widely used to clarify the idea that some properties of organisms are side-effects of selection processes. It has also been used, however, to choose between different descriptions of an evolutionary product when assigning biological functions to that product. We suggest that there is a characteristic error in these uses of the distinction. Complementary descriptions of function are misrepresented as mutually excluding one another. This error arises from a failure to (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Martin Zwick & Jeffrey A. Fletcher (2013). Levels of Altruism. Biological Theory 9 (1):1-8.score: 318.0
    The phenomenon of altruism extends from the biological realm to the human sociocultural realm. This article sketches a coherent outline of multiple types of altruism of progressively increasing scope that span these two realms and are grounded in an ever-expanding sense of “self.” Discussion of this framework notes difficulties associated with altruism at different levels. It links scientific ideas about the evolution of cooperation and about hierarchical order to perennial philosophical and religious concerns. It offers a conceptual background for (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. David L. Hull, Rodney E. Langman & Sigrid S. Glenn (2001). A General Account of Selection: Biology, Immunology, and Behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):511-528.score: 315.0
    Authors frequently refer to gene-based selection in biological evolution, the reaction of the immune system to antigens, and operant learning as exemplifying selection processes in the same sense of this term. However, as obvious as this claim may seem on the surface, setting out an account of “selection” that is general enough to incorporate all three of these processes without becoming so general as to be vacuous is far from easy. In this target article, we set out (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. David L. Hull (2001). Michael Ruse and His Fifteen Years of Booknotes – for Better or for Worse. Biology and Philosophy 16 (3):423-435.score: 315.0
    In this paper I trace Michael Ruse's Booknotes from the first volumeof Biology and Philosophy in 1986 to the present. I deal withboth the style and the content of these booknotes. Ruse paid specialattention to authors outside of the traditional English axis as wellas to feminist writers. He complained that too much attention wasbeing paid to certain topics (e.g., evolutionary ethics, evolutionaryepistemology, the species problem and reduction) while other, moreimportant topics were all but ignored (e.g., natural selection,population genetics, (...) of selection and extraterrestrial life).He also dealt with the Darwin Industry. Creationism, his love-haterelationships with several authors and his undiluted love of CharlesDickens. (shrink)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000