Biology and Philosophy

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 193–214 | Cite as

Explanatory pluralism in evolutionary biology

  • Kim Sterelny
Article

Abstract

The ontological dependence of one domain on another is compatible with the explanatory autonomy of the less basic domain. That autonomy results from the fact that the relationship between two domains can be very complex. In this paper I distinguish two different types of complexity, two ways the relationship between domains can fail to be transparent, both of which are relevant to evolutionary biology. Sometimes high level explanations preserve a certain type of causal or counterfactual information which would be lost at the lower level; I argue that this is central to the proper understanding of the adaptationist program. Sometimes high level kinds are multiply realised by lower level kinds: I argue that this is central to the understanding of macroevolution.

Key words

Adaptationism avatars competition explanation evolution macroevolution optimality reductionism species selection species sorting 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allmon, W.: 1992, ‘A Causal Analysis of Stages in Allopatric Speciation’, in Futuyma, D. and Antonovics, J. (eds.), Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology 8.Google Scholar
  2. Barkow, J., Cosmides, L. and Tooby, J. (eds.): 1992, The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, OUP, Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. Brandon, R.: 1990, Adaptation and Environment, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  4. Damuth, J.: 1985, ‘Selection Among “Species”: A Formulation in terms of Natural Functional Units’, Evolution 39, 1132–1146.Google Scholar
  5. Damuth, J. and L. Heisler: 1988, ‘Alternative Formulations of Multilevel Selection’, Biology and Philosophy 3, 407–430.Google Scholar
  6. Dawkins, R.: 1989, ‘The Evolution of Evolvability’, in Langton, C. (ed.), Artificial Life VI Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Addison-Wesley, California.Google Scholar
  7. Diamond, J.: 1992, The Third Chimpanzee, Harper/Collins, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Dretske, F.: 1972, ‘Contrastive Statements’, Philosophical Review 81, 411–437.Google Scholar
  9. Eldredge, N.: 1989, Macroevolutionary Dynamics, McGraw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Garfinkel, A.: 1981, Forms of Explanation, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  11. Gilinsky, N.L.: 1986, ‘Species Selection As A Causal Process’, Evolutionary Biology 20, 249–273.Google Scholar
  12. Godfrey-Smith, P.: 1991, Teleonomy and the Philosophy of Mind, UCSD Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
  13. Gould, S.J.: 1989, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, W.W. NNorton, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Gould, S.J.: 1991, ‘Of Kiwi Eggs and the Liberty Bell’, in Gould, S.J. (ed.), Bully for Brontosaurus, W.W. Norton, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Gould, S.J. and R. Lewontin: 1979, ‘The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Program’, Proceedings of the Royal Society, 205, 581–598.Google Scholar
  16. Griffiths, P.: 1994, ‘Cladistic Classification and Functional Explanation’, Philosophy of Science 61, 206–227.Google Scholar
  17. Horan, B.H.: 1989, ‘Functional Explanations in Sociobiology’, Biology and Philosophy 4, 131–205.Google Scholar
  18. Hutchinson, G.E.: 1959, ‘Homage to Santa Rosalia; or, Why are there So Many Kinds of Animals’, American Naturalist 93, 145–159.Google Scholar
  19. Jackson, F. and P. Pettit: 1992, ‘In Defence of Explanatory Ecumenicalism’, Economics and Philosophy 8, 1–21.Google Scholar
  20. Maynard-Smith, J.: 1987, ‘How to Model Evolution’, in Dupre, J. (ed.), The Latest on the Best, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  21. McIntosh, R.: 1992, ‘Competition: Historical Perspectives’, in Keller, E.F. and Lloyd, E. (eds.), Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  22. McNamara, K.: 1987, ‘Australian Ammonites’, Australian Natural History 22, 332–336.Google Scholar
  23. Orzack, S. and E. Sober: 1994, ‘How (Not) To Test an Optimality Model’, Trends In Ecology and Evolution 9, 265–267.Google Scholar
  24. Raup, D.M.: 1991, Extinction: Bad genes or Bad Luck?, W.W. Norton, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Schull, J.: 1990, ‘Are Species Intelligent?’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13, 63–108.Google Scholar
  26. Sober, E.: 1987, ‘What is Adaptationism’, in Dupre, J. (ed.), The Latest on the Best, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  27. Sober, E.: 1993, Philosophy of Biology, Westview Press, Boulder.Google Scholar
  28. Sterelny, K.: 1990, The Representational Theory of Mind, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  29. Sterelny, K. and P. Kitcher: 1988, ‘The Return of the Gene’, Journal of Philosophy 85, 339–361.Google Scholar
  30. Valentine, J.W.: 1990, ‘The macroevolution of Clade Shape’, in Ross, R. and Allmon, W. (eds.), The Causes of Evolution: A Paleontological Perspective; Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1990.Google Scholar
  31. Vrba, E.S.: 1984a, ‘Patterns in the Fossil Record and Evolutionary Processes’, in Ho, M-W. and Saunders, P. (eds.), Beyond Neo-Darwinism: An Introduction to the New Evolutionary Paradigm, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  32. Vrba, E.S.: 1984b, ‘Evolutionary Pattern and process in the Sister-Group Alcelaphini-Aepycerotini (Mammalia: Bovidae)’, in Eldredge, N. and Stanley, S. (eds.), Living Fossils, Springer Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Williams, G.C.: 1992, Natural Selection: Domains, Levels and Challenges, OUP, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Wills, C.: 1991, The Wisdom of the Genes, OUP, Oxford.Google Scholar
  35. Wilson, S.D.: 1992, ‘Complex Interaction in Metacommunities, with implications for Bio-diversity and Higher Levels of Selection’, Ecology 73, 1984–2000.Google Scholar
  36. Wilson, S.D. and Sober, E.: 1989, ‘Reviving the Superorganism’, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 136, 337–356.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kim Sterelny
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations