Royal Society Open Science 4:170335 (2017)

Authors
Jonathan Birch
London School of Economics
Abstract
This paper attempts to reconcile critics and defenders of inclusive fitness by constructing a synthesis that does justice to the insights of both. I argue that criticisms of the regression-based version of Hamilton’s rule, although they undermine its use for predictive purposes, do not undermine its use as an organizing framework for social evolution research. I argue that the assumptions underlying the concept of inclusive fitness, conceived as a causal property of an individual organism, are unlikely to be exactly true in real populations, but they are approximately true given a specific type of weak selection that Hamilton took, on independent grounds, to be responsible for the cumulative assembly of complex adaptation. Finally, I reflect on the uses and limitations of “design thinking” in social evolution research. The debate about the foundations of inclusive fitness theory that has followed in the wake of Nowak, Tarnita and Wilson’s critique has been remarkably polarizing. After several rounds of rebuttals and replies, there is still little evidence of any serious reconciliation between the theory’s critics and its defenders. It doesn’t have to be this way. I believe that, on the main points of disagreement, it is possible to find a way forward that does justice to the insights of both camps. My aim in this paper is to find that way forward.
Keywords inclusive fitness  kin selection  Hamilton's rule
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

References found in this work BETA

Evolution and the Levels of Selection.Samir Okasha - 2006 - Oxford University Press.

View all 25 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Hamilton’s Two Conceptions of Social Fitness.Jonathan Birch - 2016 - Philosophy of Science 83 (5):848-860.
Inclusive Fitness and the Sociobiology of the Genome.Herbert Gintis - 2014 - Biology and Philosophy 29 (4):477-515.
Inclusive Fitness and the Maximizing-Agent Analogy.Johannes Martens - 2016 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axw003.
Social Revolution. [REVIEW]Jonathan Birch - 2012 - Biology and Philosophy 27 (4):571-581.
Philosophical Aspects of the Group Selection Controversy.John Cassidy - 1978 - Philosophy of Science 45 (4):575-594.
Hamilton’s Rule and its Discontents.Jonathan Birch - 2014 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65 (2):381-411.
Darwinism Without Populations: A More Inclusive Understanding of the “Survival of the Fittest”.Frédéric Bouchard - 2011 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 42 (1):106-114.
Collective Action in the Fraternal Transitions.Jonathan Birch - 2012 - Biology and Philosophy 27 (3):363-380.
Formal Darwinism: Some Questions.Sahotra Sarkar - 2014 - Biology and Philosophy 29 (2):249-257.
Can Fitness Differences Be a Cause of Evolution?Grant Ramsey - 2013 - Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 5 (20130604).

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-06-29

Total views
61 ( #154,632 of 2,343,714 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
10 ( #62,580 of 2,343,714 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes