Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 607–614 | Cite as

Underqualified—maximal generality in Darwinian explanation: a response to Matt Gers

Article

Abstract

Gers (Biol Philos, 2011) provides a positive and constructive view of the project to generalise Darwinian principles in Geoffrey Hodgson and Thorbjørn Knudsen’s Darwin’s Conjecture. We note considerable overlap with his work and ours, and also with important recent work of Godfrey-Smith (2009), which Gers cites extensively. But we also note that there are differences in research objectives between Gers and Godfrey-Smith, on the one hand, and ourselves, on the other. Gers and Godfrey-Smith focus on the elucidation of the most general principles possible. Our aim is to derive principles that are sufficiently abstract to span the natural and human social worlds, and then add additional principles to help understand the Darwinian evolution of human society. Furthermore, Gers and Godfrey-Smith critique a replicator concept that is different from ours. Once these points are made apparent, the criticisms are essentially disabled, and we end up in a position with different but complementary and overlapping research projects.

Keywords

Generalised Darwinism Evolution Replication Reproducers Selection 

References

  1. Beinhocker ED (2011) Evolution as computation: integrating self-organization with generalized Darwinism. J Inst Econ 7(3):393–423Google Scholar
  2. Gers M (2011) Overqualified: generative replicators as Darwinian reproducers. Biol Philos, published online. doi: 10.1007/s10539-011-9281-3
  3. Godfrey-Smith P (2000) The replicator in retrospect. Biol Philos 15:403–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Godfrey-Smith P (2009) Darwinian populations and natural selection. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Hodgson GM (2001) How economics forgot history: the problem of historical specificity in social science. Routledge, London and New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hodgson GM, Knudsen T (2008) Information, complexity and generative replication. Biol Philos 43(1):47–65Google Scholar
  7. Hodgson GM, Knudsen T (2010) Darwin’s conjecture: the search for general principles of social and economic evolution. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  8. Hull DL (1988) Science as a process: an evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  9. Maynard Smith J, Szathmáry E (1995) The major transitions in evolution. WH Freeman Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Nagel E (1961) The structure of science. Routledge and Hackett Publishing, London and IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  11. Okasha S (2006) Evolution and the levels of selection. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Price GR (1995) The Nature of selection. J Theor Biol 175:389–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sterelny K, Smith KC, Dickison M (1996) The extended replicator. Biol Philos 11:377–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Szathmáry E, Maynard Smith J (1997) From replicators to reproducers: the first major transitions leading to life. J Theor Biol 187:555–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Weber M (1949) Max Weber on the methodology of the social sciences, Free Press, Glencoe (translated and edited by Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Hertfordshire Business SchoolHertfordshireEngland
  2. 2.University of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations