Skip to main content

In Defense of Gradualism

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Evolution and Transitions in Complexity

Abstract

On the basis of his Operator Theory (OT), which stresses the requirement of dual closure, Jagers argues that all operators that are at least as complex as cells qualify as organisms. I argue that while this does indeed provide us with a set of clear and consistent criteria that unambiguously demarcate organisms from other things, it is hard to assess their adequacy because not much is said about the purpose(s) they are intended to serve. Without a specification of the latter, consistency and clarity as such may not count for much. I furthermore argue that if more traditional criteria of organismality are invoked—notably metabolism and reproduction—new scientific insights suggest that the gradualist school that Jagers rallies against makes more sense than Jagers is willing to grant. In some cases we might be forced to accept the fuzziness and ambiguity inherent in “degrees of organismality” that Jagers loathes. It is important to acknowledge that the fuzziness and ambiguity do not stem from vagueness in the list of criteria and in the meanings of the criteria that are invoked, but from the diversity and variety that we find in nature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    I take it that this is what Jagers means when he argues (in $ Sect. 2.7.2) that in the first approach the sorts of things to be included in the list are selected rather haphazardly.

  2. 2.

    The only thing he says about this is that “classical” criteria should be reconsidered in light of the criteria he advances.

  3. 3.

    Remarks like these suggest that Jagers is talking more about biological individuality than about organismality.

  4. 4.

    As stated in personal communication.

  5. 5.

    One of the things I do not understand is that Booth’s critique targets the replicator –interactor framework. Godfrey-Smith, one of the spokesmen of gradualism , does not endorse this framework. In fact, Booth’s second point, that coevolutionary approaches may already explain the origin of holobionts , draws on Godfrey-Smith’s Darwinian population framework. More importantly, Booth seems to vindicate the sort of pluralism that Godfrey-Smith endorses: there are multiple options for understanding biologically relevant individuals . So it seems to me that Booth does not criticize the gradualist school at all.

References

  • Booth A (2014) Symbiosis, selection, and individuality. Biol Philos. doi:10.1007/s10539-014-9449-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupré J, O’Malley MA (2012a) Size doesn’t matter: towards a more inclusive philosophy of biology. In: Dupré J (ed) Processes of life: essays in the philosophy of biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 163–187

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dupré J, O’Malley MA (2012b) Varieties of living things: life at the intersection of lineage and metabolism. In: Dupré J (ed) Processes of life: essays in the philosophy of biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 206–229

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith P (2009) Darwinian populations and natural selection. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith P (2013) Darwinian individuals. In: Bouchard F, Huneman P (eds) From groups to individuals. Evolution and emerging individuality. MIT press, Cambridge, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith P (2014) Sender-receiver systems within and between organisms. Philos Science 81(5):866–878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jagers op Akkerhuis GAJM (2010b) Towards a hierarchical definition of life, the organism, and death. Found of Science 15:245-262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jagers op Akkerhuis GAJM (2012a) The pursuit of complexity. The utility of biodiversity from an evolutionary perspective. KNNV Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jagers op Akkerhuis GAJM (2012b) The Role of Logic and Insight in the Search for a Definition of Life. J Biomol Struct Dyn 29:619-620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Queller DC, Strassmann JE (2009) Beyond society: the evolution of organismality. Phil Trans R Soc B 364:3143–3155

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Vromen JJ (2011) Heterogeneous economic evolution: a different view on Darwinizing economics. In: Davis JB, Hands DW (eds) The Elgar companion to recent economic methodology. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 341–371

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jack Vromen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vromen, J. (2016). In Defense of Gradualism. In: Jagers op Akkerhuis, G. (eds) Evolution and Transitions in Complexity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43802-3_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics