Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 172, Issue 4, pp 949–967 | Cite as

How (not) to bring psychology and biology together

  • Mark Fedyk
Article

Abstract

Evolutionary psychologists often try to “bring together” biology and psychology by making predictions about what specific psychological mechanisms exist from theories about what patterns of behaviour would have been adaptive in the EEA for humans. This paper shows that one of the deepest methodological generalities in evolutionary biology—that proximate explanations and ultimate explanations stand in a many-to-many relation—entails that this inferential strategy is unsound. Ultimate explanations almost never entail the truth of any particular proximate hypothesis. But of course it does not follow that there are no other ways of “bringing together” biology and psychology. Accordingly, this paper explores one other strategy for doing just that, the pursuit of a very specific kind of consilience. However, I argue that inferences reflecting the pursuit of this kind of consilience with the best available theories in contemporary evolutionary biology indicate that psychologists should have a preference for explanations of adaptive behavior in humans that refer to learning and other similarly malleable psychological mechanisms—and not modules or instincts or any other kind of relatively innate and relatively non-malleable psychological mechanism.

Keywords

Evolutionary perspective Ultimate explanations Proximate explanations Consilience Evolutionary psychology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to the following for their helpful comments, criticisms, questions, and in one particular case, for several very good ideas too: Amy Allcock, Richard Boyd, Barbara Koslowski, Jane Dryden, Kate Cober, Robbie Moser, Roopen Majithia, Tamar Kushnir, and several anonymous referees.

References

  1. Alcock, J. (2001). The triumph of sociobiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, M. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boyd, R. (1985). Observations, explanatory power, and simplicity. In P. Achinstein & O. Hannaway (Eds.), Observation, experiment, and hypothesis in modern physical science (pp. 349–378). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Boyd, R. (1990). Realism, approximate truth and philosophical method. In W. Savage (Ed.), Scientific theories, Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 14, pp. 355–391). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boyd, R. (2001). Reference, (in)commensurability, and meaning: some (perhaps) unanticipated complexities. In P. Hoyningen-Huene & H. Sankey (Eds.), Incommensurability and related matters (pp. 1–63). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradbury, J. W. (1981). The evolution of leks. In R. D. Alexander & D. W. Tinkle (Eds.), Natural selection and social behavior (pp. 138–169). New York: Chiron Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cartwright, R. (2008). Evolution and human behavior: Darwinian perspectives on human nature (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cimino, A., & Delton, A. W. (2010). On the perception of newcomers: Toward an evolved psychology of intergenerational coalitions. Human Nature, 21(2), 186–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cleland, C. E. (2011). Prediction and explanation in historical natural science. British Journal of Philosophy of Science, 62(3), 551–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1990). The past explains the present: Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environments. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11, 375–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1985). Child abuse and other risks of not living with both parents. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6(4), 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fine, A. (1984). The natural ontological attitude. In J. Leplin (Ed.), Scientific realism (pp. 83–107). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Giere, R. (1983). Testing theoretical hypotheses. In J. Earman (Ed.), Testing scientific theories, Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 10, pp. 269–298). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  16. Giere, R. (1990). Evolutionary models of science. In N. Rescher (Ed.), Evolution, cognition, and realism (pp. 21–32). Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  17. Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (2012). Reconstructing constructivism: causal models, Bayesian learning mechanisms, and the theory theory. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6), 1085–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Griffiths, P. E. (2008). Ethology, sociobiology, evolutionary psychology. In S. Sarkar & A. Plutyinski (Eds.), Blackwell’s companion to philosophy of biology (pp. 393–414). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Henrich, N., & Henrich, J. (2007). Why humans cooperate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (2006). Evolution in four dimensions. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jarvi, T., Sillén-Tullberg, B., & Wiklund, C. (1981). Individual versus kin selection for aposematic coloration: a reply to Harvey and Paxton. Oikos, 37(3), 393–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kurzban, R. (2011). Why everyone (else) is a hypocrite: evolution and the modular mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Machery, E. (2011). Discovery and confirmation in evolutionary psychology. In J. Prinz (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Mayr, E. (1961). Cause and effect in biology. Science, 134(3489), 1501–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mineka, S., & Cook, M. (1988). Social learning and the acquisition of snake fear in monkeys. In T. R. Zentall & B. G. Galef Jr (Eds.), Social learning: psychological and biological perspectives (pp. 51–73). Hilladale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Moczek, A. P., Sultan, S., Foster, S., Ledon-Rettig, C., Dworkin, I., Nijhout, H. F., et al. (2011). The role of developmental plasticity in evolutionary innovation. Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences, 278, 2705–2713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mora, C., Tittensor, D. P., Adl, S., Simpson, A. G. B., & Worm, B. (2011). How many species are there on earth and in the ocean? PLoS Biology, 9(8), e1001127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pfennig, D. W., & Sherman, P. W. (1995). Kin recognition. Scientific American, 272(6), 98–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Psillos, S. (1995). Is structural realism the best of both worlds? Dialectica, 49, 15–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2006). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Schlicting, C. D., & Smith, H. (2002). Phenotypic plasticity: linking molecular mechanisms with evolutionary outcomes. Evolutionary Ecology, 16, 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Syal, S., & Finlay, B. L. (2011). Thinking outside the cortex: Social motivation in the evolution and development of language. Developmental Science, 14(2), 417–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tomasello, M. (2000). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Tomasello, M. (2009). Why we cooperate. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. West-Eberhard, M. J. (2003). Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Williams, H. T. P., & Lenton, T. M. (2007). Artificial selection of simulated microbial ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 8918–8923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wimberger, P. H. (1991). Plasticity of jaw and skull morphology in the neotropical cichlids Geophagus brasiliensis and G. steindachneri. Evolution, 45, 1545–1563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Xu, F., & Kushnir, T. (Eds.) (2012). Rational constructivism in cognitive development. Academic Press—Elsevier, Waltham.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMount Allison UniversitySackvilleCanada

Personalised recommendations