Advertisement

Theory in Biosciences

, Volume 129, Issue 2–3, pp 167–182 | Cite as

Evolutionary epistemology as a scientific method: a new look upon the units and levels of evolution debate

  • Nathalie GontierEmail author
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Evolutionary epistemology can provide a unified scientific methodology that enables scholars to study the evolution of life as well as the evolution of cognition, science, culture and any other phenomenon displayed by living organisms. In this article, three heuristics are provided that allow for a thorough search for the units, levels and mechanisms of evolution. Contrary to previous approaches, units, levels and mechanisms are not identified by pointing out essential features, but rather ostensive definitions are preferred. That is, units are considered as such if a level of evolution and a mechanism of evolution is identifiable. Levels are levels if one can point out units that evolve at that level according to evolutionary mechanisms, and mechanisms are considered as such if one can point out units and levels where the mechanism is active.

Keywords

Evolutionary epistemology Units Levels Evolutionary mechanisms 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

My warm thanks are extended to Olga Pombo for inviting me to organise the Lisbon conference. I am also very grateful for the help I got in this endeavour from my co-organizers Helena Abreu, Francisco Carrapiço, André Levy and Marco Pina. I acknowledge the financial support received from the Portuguese Fund for Science and Technology (the FACC). I am indebted to all contributors for making the volumes what they are. Finally, I want to sincerely thank the editors-in-chief of Theory in Biosciences for providing us with a good home for our proceedings.

References

  1. Bradie M (1986) Assessing evolutionary epistemology. Biol Philos 1:401–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brandon RN (1982) The levels of selection. In: Brandon RN, Burian RM (eds) (1984) Genes, organisms, populations. MIT, Cambridge, pp 133–139Google Scholar
  3. Campbell DT (1959) Methodological suggestions from a comparative psychology of knowledge processes. Inquiry 2(3):152–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell DT (1960) Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychol Rev 67:380–400CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell DT (1974) Evolutionary epistemology. In: Schlipp PA (ed) The philosophy of Karl Popper, vol I. La Salle, Chicago, pp 413–459Google Scholar
  6. Campbell DT (1997) From evolutionary epistemology via selection theory to a sociology of scientific validity. Evol Cogn 3:5–38Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky N (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Cziko G (1995) Without miracles. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Dawkins R (1976) The selfish gene. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Dawkins R (1982) Replicators and vehicles. In: Brandon NR, Burian RM (eds) (1984) Genes, organisms, populations. MIT, Cambridge, pp 161–179Google Scholar
  11. Dawkins R (1983) Universal Darwinism. In: Hull DL, Ruse M (eds) The philosophy of biology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 15–35Google Scholar
  12. Dawkins R (1999/1982) The extended replicator. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. de Saussure F (1972) Cours de linguistique générale. Editions Payot, ParisGoogle Scholar
  14. Eldredge N (1985) Unfinished synthesis. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Fadiga L et al (2000) Visuomotor neurons: ambiguity of the discharge or ‘motor’ perception. Int J Psychophysiol 35:165–177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Fodor J (1983) Modularity in the mind. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Gontier N (2006) Evolutionary epistemology. The Internet encyclopaedia of philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evo-epis.htm
  18. Gontier N (2007) Universal symbiogenesis: an alternative to universal selectionist accounts of evolution. Symbiosis 44:167–181Google Scholar
  19. Gontier N (2008) The dynamics of language activity: an evolutionary reconstruction. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  20. Griesemer J (2000) Development, culture and the units of inheritance. Philos Sci 67(Proceedings):S348–S368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Griffiths PE, Gray RD (1994) Developmental systems and evolutionary explanation. J Philos XCI(6):277–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Griffiths PE, Gray RD (1997) Replicator II: judgement day. Biol Philos 12(4):471–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hull DL (1980) Individuality and selection. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:311–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hull DL (1981) Units of evolution: a metaphysical essay. In: Jensen UJ, Harré R (eds) Studies in the concept of evolution. The Harvester Press, London, pp 23–44Google Scholar
  25. Hull DL, Langman RE, Glenn S (2001) A general account of selection: biology, immunology, and behaviour. Behav Brain Sci 24:511–573CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kitcher P, Sterelny K, Waters CK (1990) The illusory riches of Sober’s monism. J Philos 87(3):158–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kroeber AL (1923) Anthropology. Harbinger Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Lewontin R (1970) The levels of selection. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewontin R (2000) The triple helix. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Lloyd E (2005) Units and levels of selection. The Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/#3.3
  31. Lorenz K (1941) Kants Lehre vom Apriorischen im Lichte gegenwärtiger Biologie. Blätter für Deutsche Philos 15:94–125Google Scholar
  32. Maynard Smith J, Szathmáry E (1995) The major transitions in evolution. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Okasha S (2005) Multilevel selection and the major transitions in evolution. Philos Sci 72:1013–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oyama S, Griffiths PE, Gray RD (2001) Cycles of contingency. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Plotkin H (1994) Darwin machines and the nature of knowledge. Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Popper K (1963) Conjectures and refutations. Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Popper K (1975) Objective knowledge, and evolutionary approach. Oxford University Press, London (reprinted with corrections)Google Scholar
  38. Sapir E (1917) Do we need a superorganic? Am Anthropol 19:441–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sapp J (2004) The dynamics of symbiosis: an historical overview. Can J Bot 82:1046–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Skinner BF (1981) Selection by consequences. Science 213:501–504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Skinner BF (1986) The evolution of verbal behaviour. J Exp Anal Behav 45:115–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Sober E (1984) The nature of selection. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Stadler P, Prohaska S, Forst C, Krakauer D (2009) Defining genes: a computational framework. Theory Biosci 128(3):165–170. doi: 10.1007/s12064-009-0067-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Sterelny K, Kitcher P (1988) The return of the gene. J Philos 85:339–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sterelny K, Smith KC, Dickison M (1996) The extended replicator. Biol Philos 11(3):377–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Toulmin S (1972) Human understanding. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  47. Vrba E (1989) Levels of selection and sorting with special reference to the species level. Oxf Surv Evol Biol 6:111–168Google Scholar
  48. Vrba E, Eldredge N (1984) Individuals, hierarchies and processes: towards a more complete evolutionary theory. Palaeobiology 10:146–171Google Scholar
  49. Vrba E, Gould SJ (1986) The hierarchical expansion of sorting and selection: sorting and selection cannot be equated. Palaeobiology 12:217–228Google Scholar
  50. Waters CK (1991) Tempered realism about the force of selection. Philos Sci 58(4):553–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Williams GC (1966) Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  52. Wimsatt WC (1980) Reductionistic research strategies and their biases in the units of selection controversy. In: Nickles T (ed) Scientific discovery, vol II. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 213–259Google Scholar
  53. Wimsatt WC (1981) The units of selection and the structure of the multi-level genome. In: Asquith PD, Giere RN (eds) PSA. Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, pp 122–183Google Scholar
  54. Wittgenstein L (1953) Philosophical investigations, translated by Anscombe GEM. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  55. Wynne-Edwards VC (1962) Animal dispersion in relation to social behavior. Oliver & Boyd, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fund for Science and Technology, Portugal (FCT), Centre for Philosophy of ScienceUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Marie Curie Outgoing Research Fellow, Centre for Logic and Philosophy of ScienceVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Division of PalaeontologyAmerican Museum of Natural HistoryNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options