Abstract
Christopher Hitchcock‘s discussion of my use of screening-off in analyzing the causal process of natural selection raises some interesting issues to which I am pleased to reply. The bulk of his article is devoted to some fairly general points in the theory of explanation. In particular, he questions whether or not my point that phenotype screens off genotype from reproductive success (in cases of organismic selection) supports my claim that the explanation of differential reproductive success should be in terms of phenotypic differences, not genotypic differences. I will respond to this and show why the two supposed counter-examples to my position fail.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brandon, R.N.: 1981, ‘Biological teleology: Questions and explanations’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 12, 91–105.
Brandon, R.N.: 1990, Adaptation and Environment, Princeton: Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Byerly, H.C. and Michod, R.E.: 1991, ‘Fitness and evolutionary explanation’, Biology and Philosophy 6, 1–22.
Dudley, S.A. and Schmitt, J.: 1996, ‘Testing the adaptive plasticity hypothesis: Density-dependent selection on manipulated stem length in Impatiens capensis’, The American Naturalist 147, 445–465.
Eells, E.: 1991, Probabilistic Causation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hitchcock, C.R.: 1996, ‘Screening-off and visibility to selection’, Biology and Philosophy.
Kelly, J.K.: 1996, ‘Kin selection in the annual plant Impatients capensis’, The American Naturalist 147, 899–918.
Lewontin, R.C. and Dunn, R.: 1960, ‘The evolutionary dynamics of a polymorphism in the house mouse’, Genetics 45, 705–722.
Mayr, E.: 1961, ‘Cause and effect in biology’, Science 134, 1501–1506.
Salmon, W.C.: 1971, Statistical Explanation and Statistical Relevance, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.
Salmon, W.C.: 1989, ‘Four decades of scientific explanation’, in P. Kitcher and W.C. Salmon (eds.), Scientific Explanation, pp. 3–219. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Schmitt, J. and Ehrhardt, D.W.: 1990, ‘Enhancement of inbreeding depression by dominance and suppression in Impatiens capensis’, Evolution 44, 269–278.
Schmitt, J. and Gamble, S.E.: 1990, ‘The effect of distance from the parental site on offspring performance and inbreeding depression in Impatiens capensis: A test of the local adaptation hypothesis’, Evolution 44, 2022–2030.
Smith, H.: 1982, ‘Light quality, photoreception, and plant strategy’, Annual Review of Plant Physiology 33, 481–518.
Sober, E.: 1992, ‘Screening-off and the units of selection’, Philosophy of Science 59, 142–152.
Sober, E. and Lewontin, R.: 1982, ‘Artifact, cause, and genic selection’, Philosophy of Science 47, 157–180.
Sober, E. and Wilson, D.S.: 1994, ‘A critical review of philosophical work on the units of selection problem’, Philosophy of Science 61, 534–555.
Stewart, S.C. and Schoen, D.J.: 1987, ‘Pattern of phenotypic viability and fecundity selection in a natural population of Impatiens pallida’, Evolution 41, 1290–1301.
van Fraassen, B.C.: 1980, The Scientific Image, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brandon, R.N. Discussion: Reply to Hitchcock. Biology & Philosophy 12, 531–538 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006576129655
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006576129655