Advertisement

Biology and Philosophy

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 33–56 | Cite as

Where guesses come from: Evolutionary epistemology and the anomaly of guided variation

  • Edward Stein
  • Peter Lipton
Article

Abstract

This paper considers a central objection to evolutionary epistemology. The objection is that biological and epistemic development are not analogous, since while biological variation is blind, epistemic variation is not. The generation of hypotheses, unlike the generation of genotypes, is not random. We argue that this objection is misguided and show how the central analogy of evolutionary epistemology can be preserved. The core of our reply is that much epistemic variation is indeed directed by heuristics, but these heuristics are analogous to biological preadaptations which account for the evolution of complex organs. We also argue that many of these heuristics or “epistemic preadaptations” are not innate but were themselves generatedby a process of blind variation and selective retention.

Key Words

Evolutionary epistemology heuristics preadaptation variation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Bechtel, William: 1984, ‘The Evolution of Our Understanding of a Cell: A Study in the Dynamics of Scientific Progress,’ Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 15, 309–356.Google Scholar
  2. Bradie, Michael: 1986, ‘Assessing Evolutionary Epistemology,’ Biology and Philosophy 1, 401–459.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell, Donald: 1974a, ‘Evolutionary Epistemology,’ in P. A. Schilpp (ed.), The Philosophy of Karl Popper, vol. 1, The Open Court Publishing Co., LaSalle, IL, pp. 413–463.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, Donald: 1979, ‘Unjustified Variation and Selective Retention in Scientific Discovery,’ in F. J. Ayala and T. Dobzhansky (eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, Macmillan, London, pp. 139–161.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, Donald: 1979, ‘Descriptive Epistemology,’ unpublished manuscript, William James lectures, Harvard University. Forthcoming in E. S. Overman, (ed.), Methodology and Epistemology for the Social Sciences: Selected Papers of Donald Campbell, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, Noam: 1986, Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origins, and Use, Praeger Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, L. J.: 1973, ‘Is the Progress of Science Evolutionary?,’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24, 41–61.Google Scholar
  8. Dohen, L. J.: 1974, ‘Professor Hull and the Evolution of Science,’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25, 334–336.Google Scholar
  9. Dennett, Daniel: 1984, Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  10. Gould, Steven Jay and Richard Lewontin: 1978, ‘The Spandrels of San Marcos and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Paradigm,’ Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 205, 581–598.Google Scholar
  11. Hull, David: 1982, ‘The Naked Meme,’ in H. C. Plotkin, (ed.), Learning, Development and Culture, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., New York, 273–327.Google Scholar
  12. James, William: 1880, ‘Great Men, Great Thoughts and the Environment,’ Atlantic Monthly 46, 441–459.Google Scholar
  13. Kuhn, Thomas: 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, second edition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  14. Nagel, Ernest: 1961, The Structure of Science, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  15. Nozick, Robert: 1974, Anarchy, State and Utopia, Basic Books, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  16. Ruse, Michael: 1986, Taking Darwin Seriously, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  17. Skagestad, Peter: 1978, ‘Taking Evolution Seriously: Critical Comment's on D. T. Campbell's Evolutionary Epistemology,’ Monist 61, 611–621.Google Scholar
  18. Thagard, Paul: 1980, ‘Against Evolutionary Epistemology,’ in Asquith, P. D. and Giere, R. N., (eds.), PSA 1980, 187–196.Google Scholar
  19. Toulmin, Stephen: 1972, Human Understanding, vol. 1, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward Stein
    • 1
  • Peter Lipton
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Linguistics and PhilosophyMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Dept. of PhilosophyWilliams CollegeWilliamstownUSA

Personalised recommendations