Skip to main content

How evolutionary theory faces the reality

Abstract

The paper sketches an account of explanatory practice in which explanations are viewed as answers to explanation-requiring questions. To avoid difficulties in previous proposals, the paper uses the structuralist account of theory structure, arguing that theories are complex and evolving entities formed around a conceptual core and a set of intended applications. The argument is that this view does better justice to theories which involve a number of different kinds of theory-elements to give narrative explanations. Theories are, among other things, devices which can be used to turn explanation-requiring questions into a form which allows assessment of potential answers. Evolutionary theory, both in Darwin's and the modern synthetic forms, are used as examples. The view advanced is that modern evolutionary theory need not have a unique core to which other theories serve as ‘subcontractors’.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Balzer, W., Moulines, C. U. and Sneed, J. D.: 1986, ‘The Structure of Empirical Science’, in R. Barcan Marcus et al. (eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, Vol. VII, pp. 291–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balzer, W. and Sneed, J. D.: 1978, ‘Generalized Net Structures of Empirical Theories, II’, Studia Logica 37, 167–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, J.: 1980, ‘What's Wrong with the Received View of Evolutionary Theory?’, in P. D. Asquith and R. N. Giere (eds.), PSA 1980, The Philosophy of Science Associated, East Lansing MI, Vol. 2, pp. 379–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, J.: 1987, ‘On Behalf of the Semantic View’, Biology and Philosophy 2, 17–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burian, R.: 1988, ‘Challenges to the Evolutionary Synthesis’, in M. K. Hecht and B. Wallace (eds.), Evolutionary Biology, Plenum Publishing, New York, Vol. 23, pp. 247–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burian, R.: 1989, ‘The Influence of the Evolutionary Paradigm’, in M. Hecht (ed.), Evolutionary Biology at the Crossroads, Queens College Press, Flushing NY, pp. 149–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, D.: 1986, ‘Narrative and the Real World: An Argument for Continuity’, History and Theory 117–31.

  • Darwin, Charles: 1899, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, F. Darwin (ed.), Appleton & Co., New York, 2 vols.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, Charles: 1964, On the Origin of Species, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, Charles: 1974, ‘An Autobiographical Fragment, Written in 1838’ and ‘Autobiography’, in Gavin de Beer (ed.), Autographies of Charles Darwin and Thomas Henry Huxley, Oxford University Press, London, New York, Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, Michael: 1984, The Triumph of the Darwinian Method, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J.: 1982, ‘Darwinism and the Expansion of Evolutionary Theory’, Science 216, 380–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C. and Oppenheim P.: 1948, ‘Studies in the Logic of Explanation’, in C. Hempel (ed.) Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science, Free Press, New York, pp. 245–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P.: 1985, ‘Darwin's Achievement’, in N. Rescher (ed.), Reason and Rationality in Natural Science, University Press of America, Lanham MD, pp. 127–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, Thomas: 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, E.: 1983, ‘The Nature of Darwin's Support for the Theory of Natural Selection’, Philosophy of Science 50, 112–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, E.: 1986, ‘Evaluation of Evidence in Group Selection Debates’, in A. Fine and P. Machamer (eds.), PSA 1986, The Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing MI, Vol. 1, p. 483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, E.: 1987, ‘Confirmation of Ecological and Evolutionary Models’, Biology and Philosophy, 2(3), 277–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, E.: 1989, ‘The Semantic Approach and its Application to Evolutionary Theory’, in A. Fine and J. Leplin (eds.), PSA 1988, The Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing MI, Vol. 2, pp. 278–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, Ernst: 1988, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Observations of an Evolutionist, Belknap Press (Harvard University Press), Cambridge MA, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulines, C. U.: 1984, ‘Links, Loops, and the Global Structure of Science’, Philosophia Naturalis Archiv für Naturphilosophie und die Philosophischen Grentzgebiete der exakten Wissenschaften und Wissenschaftesgeschichte, Verlag Anton Hain, Meisenheim/Glan, Bd. 21 (2–4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Niiniluoto, I.: 1980, ‘The Growth of Theories: Comments on the Structuralist Approach’, in J. Hintikka, D. Gruender and E. Agazzi (eds.), Pisa Conference Proceedings, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Boston, Vol. I, pp. 3–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, Alexander: 1985, The Structure of Biological Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, Michael: 1979, The Darwinian Revolution: Science Red in Tooth and Claw, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sintonen, M.: 1984a, ‘On the Logic of Why-Questions’, in P. D. Asquith and P. Kitcher (eds.), PSA 1984, The Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing MI, Vol. I, pp. 168–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sintonen, M.: 1984b, The Pragmatics of Scientific Explanation, Acta Philosophical Fennica Societas Philosophica Fennica, Helsinki, Vol. 37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sintonen, M.: 1989, ‘Explanation: In Search of the Rationale’, in P. Kitcher and W. C. Salmon (eds.), Scientific Explanation, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Vol. XIII, pp. 253–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sintonen, M.: 1990a, ‘Darwin's Long and Short Arguments’, Philosophy of Science, 57(4), 667–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sintonen, M.: 1990b, ‘The Interrogative Model of Inquiry in Evolutionary Studies’, Acta Philosophica Fennica, Societas Philosophica Fennica, Helsinki, Vol. 49, pp. 473–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sintonen, M.: 1990c, ‘How to Put Questions to Nature’, in D. Knowles (ed.), The Limits of Explanation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 267–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sneed, J.: 1971, The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sneed, J.: 1976, ‘Philosophical Problems in the Empirical Science of Science: A Formal Approach’, Erkenntnis 10, 115–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegmüller, Wolfgang: 1976, The Structure and Dynamics of Theories, Springer-Verlag, New York, Heidelberg, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegmüller, Wolfgang: 1979, The Structuralist View of Theories. A Possible Analogoue of the Bourbaki Programme in Physical Science, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppe, F.: 1977, ‘The Search for Philosophic Understanding of Scientific Theories’, in F. Suppe (ed.), The Structure of Scientific Theories, University of Illinois Press, Urbana IL, pp. 1–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppes, P.: 1962, ‘Models of Data’, in E. Nagel, P. Suppes and A. Tarski (eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress, Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 252–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P.: 1983, ‘The Structure of Evolutionary Theory: A Semantic Approach’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 14, 215–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P.: 1987, ‘A Defence of the Semantic Conception of Evolutionary Theory’, Biology and Philosophy 2, 26–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P: 1989, ‘Explanation in the Semantic Conception of Theory Structure’, in A. Fine and J. Leplin (eds.), PSA 1988, The Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing MI, Vol. 2, pp. 286–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuomi, J.: 1981, ‘Structure and Dynamics of Darwinian Evolutionary Theory’, Syst. Zool. 30, 22–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuomi, J. and Haukioja, E.: 1979, ‘Predictability of the Theory of Natural Selection: An Analysis of the Structure of the Darwinian Theory’, Savonia 3, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, A. R.: 1905, My Life, A Record of Events and Opinions, Chapman & Hall, Ltd., London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. B.: 1970, ‘Deducing the Consequences of Evolution: A Mathematical Model’, Journal at Theoretical Biology 29, 343–85.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sintonen, M. How evolutionary theory faces the reality. Synthese 89, 163–183 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00413804

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00413804

Keywords

  • Evolutionary Theory
  • Theory Structure
  • Conceptual Core
  • Intended Application
  • Structuralist Account