Skip to main content
Log in

Parsimony and the Fisher–Wright debate

  • Published:
Biology and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript


In the past five years, there have been a series of papers in the journal Evolution debating the relative significance of two theories of evolution, a neo-Fisherian and a neo-Wrightian theory, where the neo-Fisherians make explicit appeal to parsimony. My aim in this paper is to determine how we can make sense of such an appeal. One interpretation of parsimony takes it that a theory that contains fewer entities or processes, (however we demarcate these) is more parsimonious. On the account that I defend here, parsimony is a ‘local’ virtue. Scientists’ appeals to parsimony are not necessarily an appeal to a theory’s simplicity in the sense of it’s positing fewer mechanisms. Rather, parsimony may be proxy for greater probability or likelihood. I argue that the neo-Fisherians appeal is best understood on this interpretation. And indeed, if we interpret parsimony as either prior probability or likelihood, then we can make better sense of Coyne et al. argument that Wright’s three phase process operates relatively infrequently.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others


  • Carlson E. 1966. The Gene: A Critical History.

  • J. Coyne N. Barton M. Turelli (1997) ArticleTitlePerspective: a critique of Wright’s shifting balance theory of evolution Evolution 51 IssueID3 643–671

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Dobzhansky (1951) Genetics and the Origin of Species EditionNumber3 Columbia University Press New York

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Gavrilets (1996) ArticleTitleOn phase three of the shifting balance theory Evolution 50 IssueID3 1034–1041

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Gavrilets (1997) ArticleTitleEvolution and speciation on holey adaptive landscapes Trend. Ecol. Evol. 12 IssueID8 307–312 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0169-5347(97)01098-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S.J. Gould R.C. Lewontin (1979) ArticleTitleThe Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. Evol. Adapt. Nat. Sel. 205 IssueID1161 581–598

    Google Scholar 

  • F. Jacob (1977) ArticleTitleEvolution and tinkering Science 196 1161–1166

    Google Scholar 

  • V.L. Kellogg (1903) Darwinism To-day: a Discussion of Present-Day Scientific selection Theories Bell London

    Google Scholar 

  • R.C. Lewontin (1999) What do population geneticists know and how do they know it? Creath Maienschein (Eds) Biology and Epistemology Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • W. Ockham (1957) Philosophical Writings; A Selection Nelson Edinburgh New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton I. 1729. The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. trans. Andrew Mottevol. 2 (London: Printed for B. Motte), pp.202–205.

  • Ruse M. 1993. Are Pictures Really Necessary? The Case of Sewell Wright’s ‘Adaptive Landscapes’ (in Biology: The Non-Propositional Side). PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. 1990, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers. 1990: 63–77.

  • Sober E. 1990. Let’s Razor Ockham’s Razor. Philosophy: J. Roy. Inst. Phil. 1990(Supp): 73–93.

  • E. Sober (1988) Reconstructing the Past: Parsimony, Evolution, and Inference MIT Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • E. Sober D.S. Wilson (1998) Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior Harvard University Press Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Skipper (2002) ArticleTitleThe Persistence of the RA. Fisher-Sewall Wright Controversy Biol. Phil. 17 IssueID3 341–367

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Wade C.J. Goodnight (Dec. 1998) ArticleTitlePerspective: theories of Fisher and Wright in the context of metapopulations: when nature does many small experiments Evolution 52 IssueID6 1537–1553

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams G.C. 1966. Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Wright S. 1923b. “Mendelain Analysis of Pure Breeds of Livestock II: The Duchess Family of Shorthorns as Bread by Thomas Bates.” Journal of Heredity 14: 405–422. In Provineed. 1986. Evolution: Selected Papers by Sewall WrightUniversity of Chicago Press: Chicago.

  • S. Wright (1932) ArticleTitle“The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and selection in evolution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 1 356–366

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anya Plutynski.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Plutynski, A. Parsimony and the Fisher–Wright debate. Biol Philos 20, 697–713 (2005).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: