Who Got What Wrong? Fodor and Piattelli on Darwin: Guiding Principles and Explanatory Models in Natural Selection
- 377 Downloads
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.
KeywordsNatural Selection Natural Kind Sexual Attraction Classical Mechanic Trait Evolution
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).
- Balzer, W., Moulines, C. U., & Sneed, J. (Eds.). (2000). Structuralist knowledge representation: Paradigmatic examples. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
- Block, N., & Kitcher, P. (2010a). Misunderstanding Darwin. Boston review, March/April. Retrieved from http://bostonreview.net/BR35.2/block_kitcher.php.
- Block, N., & Kitcher, P. (2010b). Rejoinder. Boston review, Online March 17. Retrieved from http://bostonreview.net/BR35.2/darwin_exchange.php#reply.
- 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
- Brandon, R. (1990). Adaptation and environment. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Brandon, R. (1996). Concepts and methods in evolutionary biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Brandon, R. (1997). Does biology have laws? The experimental evidence. Philosophy of Science, 64 (Proceedings), 444–457.Google Scholar
- 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
- Coyne, J. A. (2010). The improbability pump. The Nation, 10 May. Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/article/improbability-pump.
- Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection (6th ed.). London: John Murray.Google Scholar
- 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
- Dobzhansky, T., Ayala, F. J., Stebbins, G. L., & Valentine, J. W. (1977). Evolution. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
- Dorato, M. (2005). The software of the universe. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
- 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
- Düsing, C. (1884). Die Regulierung des Geschlechtsverhältnisses bei der Vermehrung der Menschen, Tiere und Pflanzen. Jena: Fischer.Google Scholar
- Endler, J. (1986). Natural selection in the wild. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Fisher, R. A. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Fodor, J., & Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (2010a). What Darwin got wrong. (London: Profile Books) Second edition with an Afterword, New York: Picador, 2011.Google Scholar
- Fodor, J., & Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (2010b). Misunderstanding Darwin, and exchange. Boston review, Online March 17. Retrieved from http://bostonreview.net/BR35.2/darwin_exchange.php#reply.
- Ginnobili, S. (2010). La teoría de la selección natural darwiniana. Theoria, 25, 37–58.Google Scholar
- Godfrey-Smith, P. (2010). It got eaten. London Review of Books, 32(13), 29–30.Google Scholar
- Gould, S. (1977). Ever since Darwin. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
- Gould, S., & Vrba, E. (1982). Exaptation—a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8, 4–15.Google Scholar
- Grant, P. (1999). Ecology and evolution of Darwin’s Finches. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Hamilton, W. (1967). Extraordinary sex ratios. Science, 156, 477–488.Google Scholar
- Kitcher, P. (1982). Abusing science: The case against creationism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Lennox, J. (2004). Darwinism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Substantive revised version Tue Jan 19, 2010. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/darwinism/.
- Lewontin, R. (2010). Not so natural selection. The New York review of books, May 27. Retrieved from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/may/27/not-so-natural-selection/?pagination=false.
- 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
- 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
- Martínez, M., & Moya, A. (2011). Natural selection and multi-level causation. Philosophy & Theory in Biology, 3, e202.Google Scholar
- Maynard Smith, J. (1993). The theory of evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- McShea, D. W., & Brandon, R. (2010). Biology’s first law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Midgley, M. (2010, February 6). What Darwin got wrong, by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli Palmarini. The Guardian.Google Scholar
- Mitchell, S. D. (1997). Pragmatic laws. Philosophy of Science, 64 (Proceedings), S468–S479.Google Scholar
- Mivart, G. J. (1898). The groundwork of science. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
- Okasha, S. (2010, March 26). Review of Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini’s What Darwin got wrong. Times Literary Supplement.Google Scholar
- Papineau, D. (2010). Review of Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini’s What Darwin got wrong. Prospect, 168, 83–84.Google Scholar
- Pigliucci, M., & Kaplan, J. M. (2006). Making sense of evolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
- Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Popper, K. (1976). Darwinism as a metaphysical research program. In K. Popper (Ed.), Unended questions (pp. 167–179). La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
- Ridley, M. (2004). Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Rosenberg, A. (1994). Instrumental biology or the disunity of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Rosenberg, A., & Bouchard, F. (2002). Fitness. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford enciclopedia of philosophy. Substantive revised version Thu Apr 17, 2008. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/summer2008/entries/fitness/.
- Rosenberg, A., & McShea, D. W. (2008). Philosophy of biology. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Shapin, S. (2010). The Darwin show. London Review of Books, 32, 3–9.Google Scholar
- Sober, E. (1984). The nature of selection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Sober, E. (1993). Philosophy of biology. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Sober, E. (1997). Two outbreaks of lawlessness in recent philosophy of biology. Philosophy of Science, 64 (Proceedings), 458–467.Google Scholar
- Sober, E. (2008b). Evidence and evolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Sober, E., & Fodor, J. (2010). Discussion: Who got what wrong? Retrieved from http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/2492.
- Winer, J. (1995). The beak of a finch: A story of evolution in our time. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar