Erkenntnis

, Volume 76, Issue 2, pp 171–194

Natural Selection: A Case for the Counterfactual Approach

Article

Abstract

This paper investigates the conception of causation required in order to make sense of natural selection as a causal explanation of changes in traits or allele frequencies. It claims that under a counterfactual account of causation, natural selection is constituted by the causal relevance of traits and alleles to the variation in traits and alleles frequencies. The “statisticalist” view of selection (Walsh, Matthen, Ariew, Lewens) has shown that natural selection is not a cause superadded to the causal interactions between individual organisms. It also claimed that the only causation at work is those aggregated individual interactions, natural selection being only predictive and explanatory, but it is implicitly committed to a process-view of causation. I formulate a counterfactual construal of the causal statements underlying selectionist explanations, and show that they hold because of the reference they make to ecological reliable factors. Considering case studies, I argue that this counterfactual view of causal relevance proper to natural selection captures more salient features of evolutionary explanations than the statisticalist view, and especially makes sense of the difference between selection and drift. I eventually establish equivalence between causal relevance of traits and natural selection itself as a cause.

References

  1. Achinstein, P. (1979). The nature of explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bouchard, F., & Rosenberg, A. (2004). Fitness, probability and the principles of natural selection. British Journal for Philosophy of Science, 55, 693–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandon, R., & Ramsey, G. (2006). What’s wrong with the emergentist statistical interpretation of natural selection and random drift. In M. Ruse & D. Hull (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to philosophy of biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dretske, F. (1972). Contrastive statements. Philosophical Review, 81(4), 411–437.Google Scholar
  5. Dretske, F. (1986). Misrepresentation. In R. Bogdan (Ed.), Belief, form, content and function. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  6. Endler, J. (1982). Convergent and divergent effects of natural selection on color patterns in two fish faunas. Evolution, 36, 178–188.Google Scholar
  7. Endler, J. (1986). Natural selection in the wild. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fox, C., & Wolf, J. (2006). Evolutionary genetics: Concepts and case studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Glennan, S. (2009). Productivity, relevance and natural selection. Biology & Philosophy, 24(3), 325–340.Google Scholar
  10. Hall, N. (2004). Two concepts of cause. In C. J. Hall & L. A. Paul (Eds.), Causation and counterfactuals (pp. 225–276). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hall Ned, C. J., & Paul, L. A. (Eds.). (2004). Causation and counterfactuals. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Harvey, P. H., & Pagel, M. D. (1991). The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hori, M. (1993). Frequency-dependent natural selection in the handedness of scale-eating cichlid fish. Science, 260, 216–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoso, M., Asami, T., & Hori, M. (2007). Right-handed snakes: convergent evolution of asymmetry for functional specialization. Biological Letters, 3(2), 169–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lande, R., & Arnold, S. (1983). The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution, 37(6), 1210–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lewens, T. (2004). Organisms and artefacts. Design in nature and elsewhere. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lewens, T. (2009). The natures of selection. British Journal of Philosophical Science, 1–21.Google Scholar
  18. Lewis, D. (1973). Causation. New York: Oxford University Press. Philosophical papers II.Google Scholar
  19. Matthen, M. (2009). Drift and ‘Statistically abstractive explanations’. Philosophy of Science, 76, 464–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Matthen, M., & Ariew, A. (2002). Two ways of thinking about natural selection. Journal of Philosophy, 49(2), 55–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Matthen, M., & Ariew, A. (2009). Selection and causation. Philosophy of Science, 76, 201–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mellor, D. H. (1995). The facts of causation. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Menzies, P. (2001). Difference-making in context. In C. J. Hall Ned & L. A. Paul (Eds.), Causation and counterfactuals. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Millstein, R. (2002). Are random drift and natural selection conceptually distinct? Biology and Philosophy, 17(1), 33–53.Google Scholar
  25. Millstein, R. (2006). Natural selection as a population-level causal process. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 57, 627–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Millstein R., Skipper R., & Dietrich M. (2009). (Mis)interpreting Mathematical Models: Drift As A Physical Process. Philosophy and Theory in Biology, 1.Google Scholar
  27. Neander, K. (1990). Dretske’s Innate Modesty. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74(2), 258–274.Google Scholar
  28. Nevo, E., Apelbaum-Elkahert, I., Garty, J., & Avigdor, B. (1997). Natural selection causes microscale allozyme diversity in wild barley and a lichen at ‘Evolution Canyon’, Mt. Carmel, Israel. Heredity, 78, 373–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Odling-Smee, J., Laland, K., & Feldman, M. (2003). Niche-construction: Teh neglected process in evolution. Princeton: University of Princeton Press.Google Scholar
  30. Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of ‘Meaning’. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 7, 215–271.Google Scholar
  31. Ridley, M. (1999). Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Riesman, K., & Forber, P. (2005). Manipulation and the causes of evolution. Philosophy of Science, 72, 1113–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Salmon, W. (1998). An At–At theory of causal influence. Causality and explanation. New-York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Shapiro, L., & Sober, E. (2007). Epiphenomenalism—The Do’s and the Don’ts. In G. Wolters & P. Machamer (Eds.), Studies in causality: Historical and contemporary. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  35. Sober, E. (1984). The nature of selection. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Stephens, C. (2004). Selection, drift and the “forces” of evolution. Philosophy of Science, 71, 550–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stern, D., & Orgogozo, V. (2008). The loci of evolution: how predictable is genetic evolution? Evolution, 62(9), 2155–2177.Google Scholar
  38. Takahashi, R., Watanabe, K., & Nishida, Hori. M. (2007). Evolution of feeding specialization in Tanganyikan scale-eating cichlids: a molecular phylogenetic approach. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 7, 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wade S., & Kaisz S. (1990). The causes of natural selection. Evolution, 44(8), 1947–1955.Google Scholar
  40. Walsh, D. (2000). Chasing shadows–Natural selection and adaptation. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biology and the Biomedical Sciences, 31, 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Walsh, D. (2003). Fit and diversity: Explaining adaptive evolution. Philosophy of Science, 70, 280–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Walsh, D. (2007). The pomp of superfluous causes: The interpretation of evolutionary theory. Philosophy of Science, 74, 281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Walsh, D. (forthcoming). Variance explanations.Google Scholar
  44. Walsh, D., Lewens, T., & Ariew, A. (2002). Trials of life: Natural selection and random drift. Philosophy of Science, 69, 452–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Waters, C. K. (2007). Causes that make a difference. Journal of Philosophy, 104, 551–579.Google Scholar
  46. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IHPSTCNRS/Université Paris I SorbonneParisFrance

Personalised recommendations