Abstract
Elliott Sober (1987, 1993) and Orzack and Sober (forthcoming) argue that adaptationism is a very general hypothesis that can be tested by testing various particular hypotheses that invoke natural selection to explain the presence of traits in populations of organisms. In this paper, I challenge Sober‘s claim that adaptationism is an hypothesis and I argue that it is best viewed as a heuristic (or research strategy). Biologists would still have good reasons for employing this research strategy even if it turns out that natural selection is not the most important cause of evolution.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bechtel, W. and Richardson, R.: 1992, Discovering Complexity, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Brandon, R.: 1978, ‘Adaptation and Evolutionary Theory’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 9, 181–206.
Brandon, R.: 1990, Adaptation and Environment, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Darden, L.: 1991, Theory Change in Science: Strategies from Mendelian Genetics, Oxford University Press, New York.
Endler, J.: 1986, Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Goldman, A.: 1986, Epistemology and Cognition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Gould, S. and Lewontin, R.: 1979, ‘The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adptationist Programme’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 205, 581–98.
Horan, B.: 1989, ‘Functional Explanations in Sociobiology’, Biology and Philosophy 4, 131–58.
Kauffman, S.: 1993, The Origins of Order, Oxford University Press, New York.
Kettlewell, H.: 1955, ‘Selection Experiments on Industrial Melanism in Moths’, Heredity 9, 323–42.
Kimura, M.: 1983, The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kitcher, P.: 1993, The Advancement of Science, Oxford University Press, New York.
Kuhn, T.: 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd edition), University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Langley, P., Bradshaw, G., Simon, S., and Zytkow, J.: 1987, Scientific Discovery, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA.
Laudan, L.: 1987, ‘Progress or Rationality: The Prospects for Normative Naturalism’, American Philosophical Quarterly 24, 19–31.
Mayr, E.: 1983, ‘How to Carry Out the Adaptationist Research Program’, American Naturalist 121, 324–34.
Orzack, S. and Sober, E.: (forthcoming), ‘Optimality Models and the Long Run Test of Adaptationism’, American Naturalist.
Popper, K.: 1959, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson, London.
Popper, K.: 1974, ‘Intellectual Autobiography’, in M. Schlipp (ed.), The Philosophy of Karl Popper, Open Court, La Salle, IL.
Resnik, D.: 1988, ‘Survival of the Fittest: Law of Evolution or Law of Probability?’, Biology and Philosophy 3, 349–62.
Resnik, D.: 1989, ‘Adaptationist Explanations’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 20, 193–213.
Resnik, D.: 1991, ‘How-Possibly Explanations in Biology’, Acta Biotheoretica 39, 141–49.
Resnik, D.: (forthcoming), ‘Functional Language and Biological Discovery’, Journal for General Philosophy of Science.
Sober, E.: 1984, The Nature of Selection, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA.
Sober, E.: 1987, ‘What is Adaptationism?’, in J. Dupre (ed.), The Latest and the Best, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA.
Sober, E.: 1993, Philosophy of Biology, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Solomon, M.: 1994, ‘Social Empiricism’, Nous 28, 325–43.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Resnik, D. Adaptationism: Hypothesis or Heuristic?. Biology & Philosophy 12, 39–50 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017936706537
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017936706537