British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (4):693-712 (2004)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
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 the interpretation of the theory as one about populations exclusively.
|
Keywords | Fitness Probability Natural Selection Biology |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1093/bjps/55.4.693 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus.Elliott Sober - 1984 - University of Chicago Press.
Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior.Elliot Sober & David Sloan Wilson - 1998 - Harvard University Press.
View all 31 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
Natural Selection as a Population-Level Causal Process.Roberta L. Millstein - 2006 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (4):627-653.
A New Foundation for the Propensity Interpretation of Fitness.Charles H. Pence & Grant Ramsey - 2013 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (4):851-881.
The Pomp of Superfluous Causes: The Interpretation of Evolutionary Theory.Denis M. Walsh - 2007 - Philosophy of Science 74 (3):281-303.
Selection, Drift, and the “Forces” of Evolution.Christopher Stephens - 2004 - Philosophy of Science 71 (4):550-570.
View all 77 citations / Add more citations
Similar books and articles
A Structural Description of Evolutionary Theory.Robert N. Brandon - 1980 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:427 - 439.
The Non-Existence of a Principle of Natural Selection.Abner Shimony - 1989 - Biology and Philosophy 4 (3):255-273.
The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness.Susan K. Mills & John H. Beatty - 1979 - Philosophy of Science 46 (2):263-286.
Two Ways of Thinking About Fitness and Natural Selection.Mohan Matthen & André Ariew - 2002 - Journal of Philosophy 99 (2):55-83.
Fitness and Evolutionary Explanation. [REVIEW]Henry C. Byerly & Richard E. Michod - 1991 - Biology and Philosophy 6 (1):45-53.
A Defense of Propensity Interpretations of Fitness.Robert C. Richardson & Richard M. Burian - 1992 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:349 - 362.
How to Understand Casual Relations in Natural Selection: Reply to Rosenberg and Bouchard. [REVIEW]Mohan Matthen & André Ariew - 2005 - Biology and Philosophy 20 (2-3):355-364.
Matthen and Ariew’s Obituary for Fitness: Reports of its Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated. [REVIEW]Alexander Rosenberg & Frederic Bouchard - 2005 - Biology and Philosophy 20 (2-3):343-353.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2009-01-28
Total views
276 ( #39,042 of 2,507,813 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #102,768 of 2,507,813 )
2009-01-28
Total views
276 ( #39,042 of 2,507,813 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #102,768 of 2,507,813 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads