Synthese

, Volume 190, Issue 2, pp 273–291 | Cite as

Classical population genetics and the semantic approach to scientific theories

Article
  • 218 Downloads

Abstract

In what follows, I argue that the semantic approach to scientific theories fails as a means to present the Wright–Fisher formalism (WFF) of population genetics. I offer an account of what population geneticist understand insofar as they understand the WFF, a variation on Lloyd’s view that population genetics can be understood as a family of models of mid-level generality.

Keywords

Evolutionary theory Semantic view of scientific theories Population genetics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beatty J. (1980) Optimal-design models and the strategy of model building in evolutionary biology. Philosophy of Science 47: 532–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beatty J. (1982) What’s wrong with the received view of evolutionary theory?. In: Asquith P. D., Giere R. N. (eds) PSA proceedings of the 1980 biennial meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, MI, pp 397–426Google Scholar
  3. Beatty J. (1987) On behalf of the semantic view. Biology and Philosophy 2: 17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ereshefsky M. (1991) The semantic approach to evolutionary theory. Biology and Philosophy 6: 59–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ewens W. J. (2004) Mathematical population genetics: 1. Theoretical introduction. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Franklin I., Lewontin R. C. (1970) Is the gene the unit of selection?. Genetics 65: 707–734Google Scholar
  7. Gigord, L. D. B., Macnair, M. R., & Smithson, A. (2001). Negative frequency-dependent selection maintains a dramatic flower color polymorphism in the rewardless orchid Dactylorhiza sambucina. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA, 98, 6253–6255.Google Scholar
  8. Hedrick P. W. (2005) Genetics of populations. Jones and Bartlett, BostonGoogle Scholar
  9. Kerr B., Godfrey-Smith P. (2002) Individualist and multi-level perspectives on selection in structured populations. Biology and Philosophy 17: 477–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kingman J. F. C. (1961) A matrix inequality. Quarterly Journal of Mathematics 12: 78–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Laland, K. N., Odling-Smee, F. J., & Feldman, M. W. (1999). Evolutionary consequences of niche construction and their implications for ecology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 96(18), 10242–10247.Google Scholar
  12. Lloyd E. (1983) A semantic approach to the structure of population genetics. Philosophy of Science 51: 242–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lloyd E. (1994) The structure and confirmation of evolutionary theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  14. Lloyd E., Lewontin R. C., Feldman M. W. (2008) The generational cycle of state spaces and adequate genetical representation. Philosophy of Science 75: 140–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maynard Smith J. (1974) The theory of games and the evolution of animal conflicts. Journal of Theoretical Biology 47: 209–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Millstein, R., & Skipper, R. A. (2007). Population genetics. In D. Hull & M. Ruse (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to philosophy of biology (pp. 22–43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Rice S. (2004) Evolutionary theory: Mathematical and conceptual foundations. Sinauer and Associates, Sunderland, MAGoogle Scholar
  18. Rinkevich B., Porat R., Goren M. (1995) Allorecognition elements on a urochordate histocompatibility locus indicate unprecedented extensive polymorphism. Proceedings: Biological Sciences 259: 219–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Thompson P. (1983) The structure of evolutionary theory: A semantic approach. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 14: 215–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Thompson P. (1987) A defense of the semantic conception of evolutionary theory. Biology and Philosophy 2: 26–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Thompson P. (1988) Conceptual and logical aspects of the ‘New’ evolutionary epistemology. In: Matthen M., Linsky B. (eds) Philosophy and biology. University of Calgary Press, Calgary, ABGoogle Scholar
  22. Thompson P. (1989) The structure of biological theories. State University of New York Press, Albany, NYGoogle Scholar
  23. Thompson P. (2007) Formalisations of evolutionary biology. In: Matthen M., Stephens C. (eds) Handbook of the philosophy of science, Volume 2: Philosophy of biology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 485–524Google Scholar
  24. van Fraassen B. (2006) Representation: The problem for structuralism. Philosophy of Science 73: 536–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lafayette CollegeEastonUSA

Personalised recommendations