Selection and science: Critical notice of David Hull's science as a process [Book Review]

Biology and Philosophy 7 (2):217-228 (1992)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

An examination of Hull's claims about the nature of interactors, replicators and selection, with special attention to how the genetic material realizes the first two types, and a critique of Hull's attempt to apply the theory of natural selection to the explanation of scientific change, and in particular the succession of theories. I conclude that difficulties attending the molecular instantiation of Hull's theory are vastly increased when it comes to be applied to memes.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,616

External links

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

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
49 (#287,646)

6 months
4 (#319,344)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Alex Rosenberg
Duke University

Citations of this work

Science and selection.Kim Sterelny - 1994 - Biology and Philosophy 9 (1):45-62.
Evolutionary change and epistemology.Trevor Hussey - 1999 - Biology and Philosophy 14 (4):561-584.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Selfish Gene. [REVIEW]Gunther S. Stent & Richard Dawkins - 1977 - Hastings Center Report 7 (6):33.
Theoretical Models, Biological Complexity and the Semantic View of Theories.Barbara L. Horan - 1988 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:265 - 277.

Add more references