Biology and Philosophy 29 (4):539-557 (2014)

The well-known argument against the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence (SETI) due to George Gaylord Simpson is re-analyzed almost half a century later, in the light of our improved understanding of preconditions for the emergence of life and intelligence brought about by the ongoing “astrobiological revolution”. Simpson’s argument has been enormously influential, in particular in biological circles, and it arguably fueled the most serious opposition to SETI programmes and their funding. I argue that both proponents and opponents of Simpson’s argument have occasionally mispresented its core content. Proponents often oversimplify it as just another consequence of biological contingency, thus leaving their position open to general arguments limiting the scope of contingency in evolution (such as the recent argument of Geerat Vermeij based on selection effects in the fossil record). They also tend to neglect that the argument has been presented as essentially atemporal, while referring to entities and processes that are likely to change over time; this has become even less justifiable as our astrobiological knowledge increased in recent years. Opponents have failed to see that the weaknesses in Simpson’s position could be removed by restructuring of the argument; I suggest one way of such restructuring, envisioned long ago in the fictional context by Stanislaw Lem. While no firm consensus has emerged on the validity of Simpson’s argument so far, I suggest that, contrary to the original motivation, today it is less an anti-SETI argument, and more an astrobiological research programme. In this research programme, SETI could be generalized into a platform for testing some of the deepest assumptions about evolutionary continuity and the relative role of contingency versus convergence on unprecedented spatial and temporal scales
Keywords Biological complexity  Evolutionary theory  Contingency  Convergence  Astrobiology  Extraterrestrial intelligence
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10539-013-9397-8
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 50,268
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Wonderful Life; The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History.Stephen Jay Gould - 1992 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 23 (2):359-360.
Germs in Space.Audra J. Wolfe - 2002 - Isis 93 (2):183-205.

View all 11 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Convergent Evolution and the Limits of Natural Selection.Russell Powell - 2012 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2 (3):355-373.
Laws of Biological Design: A Reply to John Beatty.Gregory J. Morgan - 2010 - Biology and Philosophy 25 (3):379-389.
The Topography of Historical Contingency.Rob Inkpen & Derek Turner - 2012 - Journal of the Philosophy of History 6 (1):1-19.
Gould’s Replay Revisited.Derek D. Turner - 2011 - Biology and Philosophy 26 (1):65-79.


Added to PP index

Total views
34 ( #280,602 of 2,325,392 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #451,872 of 2,325,392 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes