Major and minor groups in evolution

Biology and Philosophy 29 (1):1-32 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Kerr and Godfrey-Smith argue that two mathematically equivalent, alternative formal representations drawn from population genetics, the contextualist and collectivist formalisms, may be equally good for quantifying the dynamics of some natural systems, despite important differences between the formalisms. I draw on constraints on causal representation from Woodward (Making things happen, Oxford University Press, New York, 2003) and Eberhardt and Scheines (Philos Sci 74(5):981–995, 2006) to argue that one or the other formalism will be superior for arbitrary natural systems in which individuals form different types of groups



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 76,400

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Population genetics.Roberta L. Millstein & Robert A. Skipper - 2006 - In David L. Hull & Michael Ruse (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge University Press.
Varieties of population structure and the levels of selection.Peter Godfrey-Smith - 2008 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (1):25-50.
The statistical character of evolutionary theory.Barbara L. Horan - 1994 - Philosophy of Science 61 (1):76-95.
Artifact, cause and genic selection.Elliott Sober & Richard C. Lewontin - 1982 - Philosophy of Science 49 (2):157-180.
The wrong equations: a reply to Gildenhuys.Bruce Glymour - 2013 - Biology and Philosophy 28 (4):675-681.


Added to PP

44 (#267,872)

6 months
2 (#300,644)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Peter Gildenhuys
Lafayette College

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations