Skip to main content
Log in

Laplaceanism defended

  • Published:
Biology & Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This work is a critical consideration of several arguments recently given by Elliott Sober that are aimed at undermining the Laplacean stance on probability in evolutionary theory (and, by extension, the special sciences more broadly). The Laplacean contends that the only objective probability an event has is the one assigned to it by a complete description of the relevant microparticles. Sober alleges a formal demonstration that the Laplacean stance on probability in evolutionary theory is inconsistent. But Sober’s argument contains a crucial lacuna, one that likely cannot be repaired to yield the conclusion that Sober draws. He also argues that the Laplacean is committed to inferring semantic facts about probabilities from pragmatic facts about agents’ reasons for using probabilities. But Sober’s arguments against inferring semantic facts from pragmatic constraints would only undermine one basis for Laplaceanism. The Laplacean who formulates her position carefully need not leave herself vulnerable to Sober’s objection to inferring semantics from pragmatics.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For the sake of argument, Sober undertakes MS, though he cautions that the principle may be false (2010, 144). I will suppose MS, too.

  2. See Glymour (2006) for a critique of the reliability assumption made here.

  3. Rosenberg has in fact changed his views since his 1994 work (Bouchard and Rosenberg 2004; Rosenberg 2001a, b; Rosenberg and Bouchard 2005); Sober notes this, too.

References

  • Abrams M (2007) Fitness and propensity’s annulment. Biol Philos 22:115–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard F, Rosenberg A (2004) Fitness, probability and the principles of natural selection. Br J Philos Sci 55:693–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandon RN, Carson S (1996) The indeterministic character of evolutionary theory: no “no hidden variables proof” but no room for determinism either. Philos Sci 63:315–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankham R (1995) Effective population size/adult population size ratios in wildlife: a review. Genet Res 66:95–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gildenhuys P (2009) An explication of the causal dimension of drift. Br J Philos Sci 60:521–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillies D (2000) Philosophical theories of probability. Philos Issues Sci, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Glymour B (2006) Wayward modeling: population genetics and natural selection. Philos Sci 73:369–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves L, Horan BL, Rosenberg A (1999) Is indeterminism the source of the statistical character of evolutionary theory? Philos Sci 66:140–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hájek A (2012) Interpretations of probability. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Winter 2012 edn. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/probability-interpret/

  • Hedgecock D (1994) Does variance in reproductive success limit effective population sizes of marine organisms? In: Beaumont AR (ed) Genetics and evolution of aquatic organisms. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 122–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedrick PW (2005) Large variance in reproductive success and the Ne/N ratio. Evolution 59:1596–1599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horan BL (1994) The statistical character of evolutionary theory. Philos Sci 61:76–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg A (1994) Instrumental biology, or the disunity of science. In: Science and its conceptual foundations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

  • Rosenberg A (2001a) Discussion note: indeterminism, probability, and randomness in evolutionary theory. Philos Sci 68:536–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg A (2001b) Indeterminism, probability and randomness in evolutionary theory. Philos Sci 63:536–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg A, Bouchard F (2005) Matthen and Ariew’s obituary for fitness: reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated. Biol Philos 20:343–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaffer J (2007) Deterministic chance? Br J Philos Sci 58:113–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sober E (2010) Evolutionary theory and the reality of macro probabilities. In: Eells E, Fetzer J (eds) Probability in science. Springer, Boston, pp 133–162

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sober E (2011) Did Darwin write the origin backwards: philosophical essays on Darwin’s theory. Prometheus Books, Amherst

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (2001) Determinism, realism, and probability in evolutionary theory. Philos Sci 68:S213–S224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (2005) Darwinism as a theory for finite beings. In: Hosle V, Illies C (eds) Darwinism and philosophy. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, pp 275–297

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Kevin Scharp, Roberta Millstein, Elliott Sober, and two anonymous referees for very helpful comments on earlier drafts of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Gildenhuys.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gildenhuys, P. Laplaceanism defended. Biol Philos 31, 395–408 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-016-9518-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-016-9518-2

Keywords

Navigation