, Volume 78, Issue 5, pp 1143–1175 | Cite as

Who Got What Wrong? Fodor and Piattelli on Darwin: Guiding Principles and Explanatory Models in Natural Selection

  • José Díez
  • Pablo Lorenzano
Original Article


The purpose of this paper is to defend, contra Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini (F&PP), that the theory of natural selection (NS) is a perfectly bona fide empirical unified explanatory theory. F&PP claim there is nothing non-truistic, counterfactual-supporting, of an “adaptive” character and common to different explanations of trait evolution. In his debate with Fodor, and in other works, Sober defends NS but claims that, compared with classical mechanics (CM) and other standard theories, NS is peculiar in that its explanatory models are a priori (a trait shared with few other theories). We argue that NS provides perfectly bona fide adaptive explanations of phenotype evolution, unified by a common natural-selection guiding principle. First, we introduce the debate and reply to F&PP’s main argument against NS. Then, by reviewing different examples and analyzing Fisher’s model in detail, we show that NS explanations of phenotypic evolution share a General Natural Selection Principle. Third, by elaborating an analogy with CM, we argue against F&PP’s claim that such a principle would be a mere truism and thus explanatorily useless, and against Sober’s thesis that NS models/explanations have a priori components that are not present in CM and other common empirical theories. Irrespective of differences in other respects, the NS guiding principle has the same epistemic status as other guiding principles in other highly unified theories such as CM. We argue that only by pointing to the guiding principle-driven nature that it shares with CM and other highly unified theories, something no-one has done yet in this debate, one can definitively show that NS is not defective in F&PP’s sense: in the respects relevant to the debate, Natural Selection is as defective and as epistemically peculiar as Classical Mechanics and other never questioned theories.


Natural Selection Natural Kind Sexual Attraction Classical Mechanic Trait Evolution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We want to thank D. Blanco, A. Diéguez, M. García-Carpintero, S. Ginnobili, C. Hoefer, P. Humphreys, J. Lennox, M. Martínez, C.U. Moulines, E. Sober, the attendants of the LOGOS Seminar (Barcelona), the CPS Lunch Time Talks (Pittsburgh) and the IHPS Colloquium (Toronto), and an anonymous referee of this journal for comments and criticisms on previous versions of this paper. Research for this work has been supported by research projects FFI2008-01580/CONSOLIDER INGENIO CSD2009-0056 (Spain) and PICT2007-1558-ANPCyT and PIP-112-201101-01135-CONICET (Argentina).


  1. Ariew, A., & Lewontin, R. C. (2004). The confusions of fitness. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55, 347–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balzer, W., Moulines, C. U., & Sneed, J. D. (1987). An architectonic for science. The structuralist program. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balzer, W., Moulines, C. U., & Sneed, J. (Eds.). (2000). Structuralist knowledge representation: Paradigmatic examples. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  4. Block, N., & Kitcher, P. (2010a). Misunderstanding Darwin. Boston review, March/April. Retrieved from
  5. Block, N., & Kitcher, P. (2010b). Rejoinder. Boston review, Online March 17. Retrieved from
  6. Brandon, R. (1978). Adaptation and evolutionary theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 9, 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandon, R. (1982). A structural description of evolutionary theory. In P. D. Asquith & R. N. Giere (Eds.), PSA 1980 (Vol. II, pp. 427–439). East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
  8. Brandon, R. (1990). Adaptation and environment. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brandon, R. (1996). Concepts and methods in evolutionary biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brandon, R. (1997). Does biology have laws? The experimental evidence. Philosophy of Science, 64 (Proceedings), 444–457.Google Scholar
  11. Carrier, M. (1995). Evolutionary change and lawlikeness: Beatty on biological generalizations. In G. Wolters & J. Lennox (Eds.), Concepts, theories and rationality in the biological sciences (pp. 82–97). Konstanz: Konstanz University Press and Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Coyne, J. A. (2010). The improbability pump. The Nation, 10 May. Retrieved from
  13. Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection (6th ed.). London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  14. Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dennet, D. (2008). Fun and games in Fantasyland. Mind and Language, 23, 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Díez, J. A. (2002). A program for the individuation of scientific concepts. Synthese, 130, 13–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Díez, J. A. (2005). The Ramsey sentence and theoretical content. In M. J. Frapolli (Ed.), Belief, truth and probability (pp. 70–103). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  18. Dobzhansky, T., Ayala, F. J., Stebbins, G. L., & Valentine, J. W. (1977). Evolution. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
  19. Dorato, M. (2005). The software of the universe. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  20. Dorato, M. (2012). Mathematical biology and the existence of biological laws. In D. Dieks, W. J. Gonzalez, S. Hartmann, M. Stöltzner, & M. Weber (Eds.), Probabilities, laws and structure. The philosophy of science in a European perspective (Vol. 3, pp. 109–121). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Düsing, C. (1884). Die Regulierung des Geschlechtsverhältnisses bei der Vermehrung der Menschen, Tiere und Pflanzen. Jena: Fischer.Google Scholar
  22. Edwards, A. W. (1998). Natural selection and the sex ratio: Fisher’s sources. American Naturalist, 151, 564–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Edwards, A. W. (2000). Carl Düsing (1884) on The regulation of the sex-ratio. Theoretical Population Biology, 58, 255–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Elgin, M. (2003). Biology and a priori laws. Philosophy of Science, 70, 1380–1389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Endler, J. (1983). Natural and sexual selection on color patterns in poeciliid fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 9, 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Endler, J. (1986). Natural selection in the wild. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Fisher, R. A. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  28. Fodor, J. (2008a). Against Darwinism. Mind and Language, 23, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fodor, J. (2008b). Replies. Mind and Language, 23, 50–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fodor, J., & Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (2010a). What Darwin got wrong. (London: Profile Books) Second edition with an Afterword, New York: Picador, 2011.Google Scholar
  31. Fodor, J., & Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (2010b). Misunderstanding Darwin, and exchange. Boston review, Online March 17. Retrieved from
  32. Futuyma, D. (2010). Two critics without a clue. Science, 328(5979), 692–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ginnobili, S. (2010). La teoría de la selección natural darwiniana. Theoria, 25, 37–58.Google Scholar
  34. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2008). Explanation in evolutionary biology: Comments on Fodor. Mind and Language, 23, 32–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2010). It got eaten. London Review of Books, 32(13), 29–30.Google Scholar
  36. Gould, S. (1977). Ever since Darwin. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  37. Gould, S., & Lewontin, R. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 205, 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gould, S., & Vrba, E. (1982). Exaptation—a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8, 4–15.Google Scholar
  39. Grant, P. (1999). Ecology and evolution of Darwin’s Finches. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Hamilton, W. (1967). Extraordinary sex ratios. Science, 156, 477–488.Google Scholar
  41. Kettlewell, H. B. D. (1955). Selection experiments on industrial melanism in the Lepidoptera. Heredity, 9, 323–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kettlewell, H. B. D. (1956). Further selection experiments on industrial melanism in the Lepidoptera. Heredity, 10, 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kitcher, P. (1982). Abusing science: The case against creationism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). Second thoughts on paradigms. In: F. Suppe (Ed.), The structure of scientific theories (pp. 459–482). Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  46. Kuhn, T. S. (1976). Theory change as structure-change: Comments on the Sneed formalism. Erkenntnis, 10, 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kuhn, T. S. (1990). Dubbing and redubbing: The vulnerability of rigid designation. In C. W. Savage (Ed.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 14, pp. 298–318). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  48. Lange, M. (1999). Laws, counterfactuals, stability and degrees of lawhood. Philosophy of Science, 66, 243–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lennox, J. (2001). History and philosophy of science: A phylogenetic approach. Historia, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos, 8, 655–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lennox, J. (2004). Darwinism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Substantive revised version Tue Jan 19, 2010. Retrieved from
  51. Lennox, J., & Bradley, E. W. (1994). Natural selection and the struggle for existence. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 25, 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lewontin, R. (1978). Adaptation. Scientific American, 239, 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lewontin, R. (2010). Not so natural selection. The New York review of books, May 27. Retrieved from
  54. Lorenzano, P. (2000). Classical genetics and the theory-net of genetics. In W. Balzer, C. U. Moulines, & J. Sneed (Eds.), Structuralist knowledge representation: Paradigmatic examples (pp. 251–284). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  55. Lorenzano, P. (2006). Fundamental laws and laws of biology. In G. Ernst & K.-G. Niebergall (Eds.), Philosophie der Wissenschaft, Wissenschaft der Philosophie (pp. 129–155). Paderborn: Mentis-Verlag.Google Scholar
  56. Martínez, M., & Moya, A. (2011). Natural selection and multi-level causation. Philosophy & Theory in Biology, 3, e202.Google Scholar
  57. Matthen, M., & Ariew, A. (2002). Two ways of thinking about fitness and natural selection. Journal of Philosophy, 99, 55–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Maynard Smith, J. (1993). The theory of evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. McShea, D. W., & Brandon, R. (2010). Biology’s first law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  60. Midgley, M. (2010, February 6). What Darwin got wrong, by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli Palmarini. The Guardian.Google Scholar
  61. Mitchell, S. D. (1997). Pragmatic laws. Philosophy of Science, 64 (Proceedings), S468–S479.Google Scholar
  62. Mivart, G. J. (1898). The groundwork of science. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  63. Moulines, C. U. (1984). Existential quantifiers and guiding principles in physical theories. In J. J. E. Gracia, E. Rabossi, E. Villanueva, & M. Dascal (Eds.), Philosophical analysis in Latin America (pp. 173–198). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Moulines, C. U. (2002). Structuralism as a program for modeling theoretical science. Synthese, 130, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Okasha, S. (2010, March 26). Review of Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini’s What Darwin got wrong. Times Literary Supplement.Google Scholar
  66. Papineau, D. (2010). Review of Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini’s What Darwin got wrong. Prospect, 168, 83–84.Google Scholar
  67. Pigliucci, M., & Kaplan, J. M. (2006). Making sense of evolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  68. Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  69. Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Popper, K. (1976). Darwinism as a metaphysical research program. In K. Popper (Ed.), Unended questions (pp. 167–179). La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  71. Resnik, D. (1997). Adaptationism: Hypothesis or heuristic? Biology and Philosophy, 12, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ridley, M. (2004). Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Rosenberg, A. (1978). The supervenience of biological concepts. Philosophy of Science, 45, 368–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rosenberg, A. (1983). Fitness. The Journal of Philosophy, 80, 457–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rosenberg, A. (1985). The structure of biological science. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rosenberg, A. (1994). Instrumental biology or the disunity of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  77. Rosenberg, A., & Bouchard, F. (2002). Fitness. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford enciclopedia of philosophy. Substantive revised version Thu Apr 17, 2008. Retrieved from
  78. Rosenberg, A., & McShea, D. W. (2008). Philosophy of biology. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  79. Shapin, S. (2010). The Darwin show. London Review of Books, 32, 3–9.Google Scholar
  80. Sneed, J. D. (1971). The logical structure of mathematical physics. Dordrecht: Reidel. Second revised edition, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sober, E. (1984). The nature of selection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  82. Sober, E. (1993). Philosophy of biology. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Sober, E. (1997). Two outbreaks of lawlessness in recent philosophy of biology. Philosophy of Science, 64 (Proceedings), 458–467.Google Scholar
  84. Sober, E. (2008a). Fodor’s bubbe meise against Darwinism. Mind and Language, 23, 42–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sober, E. (2008b). Evidence and evolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Sober, E. (2010). Natural selection, causality and laws: Selection-for: What Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini got wrong. Philosophy of Science, 77, 594–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sober, E. (2011). A priori causal models of natural selection. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 89, 571–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sober, E., & Fodor, J. (2010). Discussion: Who got what wrong? Retrieved from
  89. Winer, J. (1995). The beak of a finch: A story of evolution in our time. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LOGOS Research GroupUniversidad de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, CONICETQuilmesArgentina

Personalised recommendations