Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biosemiotics and Applied Evolutionary Epistemology: A Comparison

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Biosemiotics and Evolution

Part of the book series: Interdisciplinary Evolution Research ((IDER,volume 6))

Abstract

Both biosemiotics and evolutionary epistemology are concerned with how knowledge evolves. (Applied) Evolutionary Epistemology thereby focuses on identifying the units, levels, and mechanisms or processes that underlie the evolutionary development of knowing and knowledge, while biosemiotics places emphasis on the study of how signs underlie the development of meaning. We compare the two schools of thought and analyze how in delineating their research program, biosemiotics runs into several problems that are overcome by evolutionary epistemologists. For one, by emphasizing signs, biosemiotics needs to delineate a semiotic threshold, which is a problem not encountered by evolutionary epistemologists. Instead, the latter recognizes that all organisms are knowers that evolve knowledge, which they recognize to extend toward phenomena produced by organisms such as behavior, cognition, language, culture, science, and technology. Secondly, biosemiotics attempts at continuing adaptationist notions on how organisms relate to their environment, while especially Applied Evolutionary Epistemology comes to redefine the nature of the organism–environment relationship in such a way that it recognizes the spatiotemporal boundedness of existence, which in turn makes adaptationist accounts obsolete.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Note that the concept cognitive niche is also used by Tooby and DeVore (1987) in an adaptationist context.

  2. 2.

    According to scholars of the International Society for Code Biology (http://www.codebiology.org/) (i.e., Barbieri together with Stefan Artmann, Joachim De Beule, Peter Dittrich, Almo Farina, Dennis Görlich, Hendrik Hofmeyr, Stefan Kühn, Chris Ottolenghi, Liz Swan, Morten Tønnessen, and Jan-Peter Wills), Peircean biosemiotics is incapable of providing “a scientific approach to the semiosis of Nature” (Barbieri 2014). Hence, by distancing themselves from Peircean biosemiotics and by working from within a new theoretical framework called “code biology,” these scholars aspire to provide such “a scientific approach” through “a study of all codes of life with the standard methods of science” (Barbieri 2014). For a review of other critical perspectives on Peircean biosemiotics and biosemiotics in general, the reader may refer to (Favareau 2007), who points to the existence of both “informed” and “uninformed criticism” of such view. According to Favareau (2007, 45), whereas insiders of biosemiotics generally put forward the former (he cites Vehkavaara (2002, 2003) and Artmann (2005), among others), the latter is mainly proposed by “those critics from the outside” to whom he attributes a misunderstanding of the theory. As we will see, the Constructive approach to biosemiotics discussed in this paper (and of which Vehkavaara is one of the leading advocates) is critical of Peircean biosemiotics and, more specifically, of its understanding of the “sign” notion.

  3. 3.

    According to Peirce’s theory of signs, “semantic links between representamen and their interpretants are based on the association with objects; and thus, appear grounded in the real world” (Sharov 2018, 202).

  4. 4.

    We use the term “complete” to refer to Diettrich’s Constructivist EE (CEE) and Riegler’s Radical Constructivism. Both authors resort to such an adjective (Diettrich 1998; Riegler 2001) to mark the distance between their positions and von Glasersfeld’s Radical Constructivism. Contrary to the latter, Diettrich and Riegler endorse a kind of constructivism “on all levels” (Riegler 2001, 7) (reviewed in Facoetti 2017, 3).

References

  • Artmann S (2005) Biosemiotics as a structural science: between the forms of life and the life of forms. J Biosemiotics 1:229–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri M (2014) From biosemiotics to code biology. Biol Theory 9(2):239–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Bertalanffy L (1968) General system theory: foundations, development, applications. George Braziller, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradie M (1986) Assessing evolutionary epistemology. Biol Philos 1:401–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradie M, Harms W (2001) (substantive revision: 2016). Evolutionary epistemology. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-evolutionary/. Accessed Jan 2020

  • Brier S (2006) Biosemiotics. Int Encycl Lang Linguist 2:31–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Brier S (2015) Can biosemiotics be a ‘science’ if its purpose is to be a bridge between the natural, social and human sciences? Prog Biophys Mol Biol 119(3):576–587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brigandt I, Love A (2017) Reductionism in biology. In Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Spring. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/reduction-biology/. Accessed 4 June 2019

  • Bruni LE (2008) Cellular semiotics and signal transduction. In: Barbieri M (ed) Introduction to biosemiotics. The new biological synthesis. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 365–407

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell DT (1974a) Evolutionary epistemology. In: Schlipp PA (ed) The philosophy of Karl Popper, vol I. La Salle, Chicago, IL, pp 413–459

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell DT (1974b) Downward causation in hierarchically organized biological systems. In: Ayala FJ, Dobzhansky T (eds) Studies in the philosophy of biology: reduction and related problems. Palgrave, London, pp 179–186

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clark A, Chalmers DJ (1998) The extended mind. Analysis 58(1):7–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins R (1983) Universal Darwinism. In: Hull DL, Ruse M (eds) The philosophy of biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 15–35 [First published in Bendall DS (ed) (1998) Evolution from molecules to man. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 403–425]

    Google Scholar 

  • Deely J (2013) The quasi-error of the external world: an essay for Thomas A. Sebeok, in memoriam. Cybern Hum Knowing 10(1):25–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Diettrich O (1998) On some relations between cognitive and biological evolution. In: Van de Vijver G, Salthe S, Delpos M (eds) Evolutionary systems. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 319–340

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Diettrich O (2001) A physical approach to the construction of cognition and to cognitive evolution. Found Sci 6(4):273–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diettrich O (2004) Cognitive evolution. In: Wuketits FM, Antweiler C (eds) Handbook of evolution, Vol. 1: the evolution of human societies and cultures. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA, Weinheim, pp 25–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Diettrich O (2006) The biological boundary conditions for our classical physical world view. In: Gontier N et al (eds) Evolutionary epistemology, language and culture. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 67–93

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eco U (1984) Semiotics and the philosophy of language. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Facoetti M (2017) Evolution, knowledge, and reality: a defence of non-adaptationist evolutionary epistemology. Master thesis. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/353294. Accessed 22 May 2020

  • Facoetti M (2020) Donald Davidson’s critiques of conceptual relativism applied to non-adaptationist evolutionary epistemology and refuted. Found Sci 25:357–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Facoetti M (2021) United in diversity: an organic overview of non-adaptationist evolutionary epistemology. J Gen Philos Sci 52:211–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Favareau D (2007) The evolutionary history of biosemiotics. In: Barbieri M (ed) Introduction to biosemiotics: the new biological synthesis. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Favareau D et al (2017) How can the study of the humanities inform the study of biosemiotics? Biosemiotics 10:9–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gensini S (2002) Elementi di semiotica. Carocci editore, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld E (1981) Einführung in den Radikalen Konstruktivismus. In: Watzlawick P (ed) Die Erfundene Wirklichkeit. Piper, Munich, pp 16–38

    Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld E (1984) An introduction to radical constructivism. In: Watzlawick P (ed) The invented reality. Norton, New York, pp 17–40

    Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld E (1995) Radical constructivism. The Palmer Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gontier N (2006a) Introduction to evolutionary epistemology, language and culture. In: Gontier N et al (eds) Evolutionary epistemology, language and culture. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gontier N (2006b) Evolutionary epistemology. Internet encyclopaedia of philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/evo-epis/#H6. Accessed Jan 2020

  • Gontier N (2012) Applied evolutionary epistemology: a new methodology to enhance interdisciplinary research between the life and human sciences. Kairos 4:7–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Gontier N (2017) What are the levels and mechanisms/processes of language evolution? Lang Sci 63:12–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gontier N (2018) On how epistemology and ontology converge through evolution: the applied evolutionary epistemological approach. In: Wuppuluri S, Doria FA (eds) The map and the territory. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 533–569

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gontier N, Bradie M (2017) Acquiring knowledge on species-specific biorealities: the applied evolutionary epistemological approach. In: Joyce R (ed) The routledge handbook of evolution and philosophy. Routledge, London, pp 136–152

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (1977) Ontogeny and phylogeny. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ, Lewontin R (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc R Soc London, Ser B 205:581–598

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hahlweg K, Hooker C (eds) (1989) Issues in evolutionary epistemology. State University of New York Press, Abany, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer J (2010) God and the world of signs: semiotics and the emergence of life. Zygon 45(2):367–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer J (2011) Biology is immature biosemiotics. In: Emmeche C, Kull K (eds) Towards a semiotic biology: life is the action of signs. Imperial College Press, London, pp 43–65

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer J, Emmeche C (1991) Code-duality and the semiotics of nature. In: Anderson M, Merrell F (eds) On semiotic modelling. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, pp 117–166

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer J, Kull K (2011) Theories of signs and meaning: views from copenhagen and tartu. In: Emmeche C, Kull K (eds) Towards a semiotic biology: life is the action of signs. Imperial College Press, London, pp 263–286

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hull DL (1988) Science as a process: an evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • James W (1907) Pragmatism: a new name for some old ways of thinking. Project Gutenberg, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5116/5116-h/5116-h.htm

  • Kalevi K (1998) Semiotic ecology: different natures in the semiosphere. Sign Syst Stud 26:344–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kull K (1999) Biosemiotics in the twentieth century: a view from biology. Semiotica 127(1/4):385–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kull K (2009a) Biosemiotics: to know, what life knows. Cybern Hum Knowing 16(1–2):81–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull K (2009b) The importance of semiotics to university: semiosis makes the world locally plural. In: Deely J, Sbrocchi LG (eds) Semiotics 2008: specialization, semiosis, semiotics. Legas, Ottawa, pp 494–514

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull K (2009c) Vegetative, animal, and cultural semiosis: the semiotic threshold zones. Cognit Semiotics 4:8–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kull K (2014) Zoosemiotics is the study of animal forms of knowing. Semiotica 198:47–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull K (2015) Introduction to biosemiotics. In: Trifonas PP (ed) International handbook of semiotics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 521–533

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kull K (2018) On the logic of animal umwelten: the animal subjective present and zoosemiotics of choice and learning. In: Marrone G, Mangano D (eds) Semiotics of animals in culture: Zoosemiotics 2.0. Springer, Cham, pp 135–148

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kull K, Emmeche C, Favareau D (2011a) Biosemiotic research questions. In: Emmeche C, Kull K (eds) Towards a semiotic biology: life is the action of signs. Imperial College Press, London, pp 67–90

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kull K, Emmeche C, Hoffmeyer J (2011b) Why biosemiotics? An introduction to our view on the biology of life itself. In: Emmeche C, Kull K (eds) Towards a semiotic biology: life is the action of signs. Imperial College Press, London, pp 1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull K et al (2011c) Theses on biosemiotics: prolegomena to a theoretical biology. In: Emmeche C, Kull K (eds) Towards a semiotic biology: life is the action of signs. Imperial College Press, London, pp 25–41

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin RC (1982) Organism and environment. In: Plotkin HC (ed) Learning, development and culture. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin RC (1983) Gene, organism, and environment. In: Bendall DS (ed) Evolution from molecules to men. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin RC (2000) The triple helix. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu CH, Matthews R (2005) Vygotsky’s philosophy: constructivism and its criticisms examined. Int Educ J 6(3):386–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz K (1941) Kant’s Lehre vom Apriorischen im Lichte gegenwärtiger Biologie. Blätter Dtsch Philos 15:94–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz K (1977) Behind the mirror: a search for a natural history of human knowledge. Methuen, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Löwenhard P (1989) The mind-body problem: some neurobiological reflections. In: Hoyningen-Huene P, Wuketits FM (eds) Reductionism and systems theory in the life sciences. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 85–135

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Magnani L (2017) The abductive structure of scientific creativity: an essay on the ecology of cognition. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maturana HR (1970) Biology of cognition. In: BCL report 9.0. University of Illinois, Champaign, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana HR, Varela FJ (1980) Autopoiesis and cognition: the realization of the living. D. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Munz P (1993) Philosophical Darwinism: on the origin of knowledge by means of natural selection. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Nöth W (1998) Ecosemiotics. Sign Syst Stud 26:332–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odling-Smee FJ, Laland KN, Feldman MW (1996) Niche construction. Am Nat 147:641–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattee HH (ed) (1973) Hierarchy theory: the challenge of complex systems. Braziller, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattee HH, Kull K (2011) Between physics and semiotics. In: Emmeche C, Kull K (eds) Towards a semiotic biology: life is the action of signs. Imperial College Press, London, pp 213–233

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce CS (1931–1935) Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol 1–8. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce CS (1992, 1999) The essential Peirce, 2 volumes. Indiana University Press, Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget J (1970) Genetic epistemology (trans: Duckworth E). Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Plotkin H (1994) Darwin machines and the nature of knowledge: concerning adaptations, instinct and the evolution of intelligence. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper KR (1963) Conjectures and refutations. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper KR (1972) Objective knowledge: an evolutionary approach. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine WV (1969) Naturalized epistemology. In: Quine WV (ed) Ontological relativity and other essays. Colombia University Press, New York, pp 69–90

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Riedl R (1984) Biology of knowledge: the evolutionary basis of reason. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Riegler A (2001) Towards a radical constructivist understanding of science. Found Sci 6:1–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riegler A (2006) Like cats and dogs: radical constructivism and evolutionary epistemology. In: Gontier N et al (eds) Evolutionary epistemology, language and culture. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 47–65

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rorty R (1980) Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild FS (1962) Laws of symbolic mediation in the dynamics of self and personality. Ann N Y Acad Sci 96:774–784

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Salthe SN (1985) Evolving hierarchical systems: their structure and representation. Columbia University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok TA (1994) Signs: an introduction to semiotics. University of Toronto Press, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok TA (1996) Signs, bridges, origins. In: Trabant J (ed) Origins of language. Collegium Budapest, Budapest, pp 89–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423 & 623–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharov AA (1999) Pragmatism and umwelt-theory. http://alexei.nfshost.com/biosem/txt/umwelt.html. Accessed 13 Dec 2018

  • Sharov AA (2016) Evolutionary biosemiotics and multilevel construction networks. Biosemiotics 9(3):399–416

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sharov AA (2018) Mind, agency, and biosemiotics. J Cognit Sci 192:195–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharov AA (n.d.) What is biosemiotics? http://alexei.nfshost.com/biosem/geninfo.html. Accessed 13 Dec 2018

  • Sharov AA, Maran T, Tønnessen M (2015) Towards synthesis of biology and semiotics. Biosemiotics 8:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharov AA, Maran T, Tønnessen M (2016) Comprehending the semiosis of evolution. Biosemiotics 9(1):1–6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sharov AA, Vehkavaara T (2015) Protosemiosis: agency with reduced representation capacity. Biosemiotics 8(1):103–123. [Available at (without page numbers): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4414345/. Accessed 23 Sept 2019]

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1962) The architecture of complexity: hierarchic systems. Proc Am Philos Soc 106:467–482

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen N (1963) On aims and methods in ethology. Z Tierpsychol 20:410–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tooby J, DeVore I (1987) The reconstruction of hominid evolution through strategic modeling. In: Kinzey WG (ed) The evolution of human behavior: primate models. SUNY Press, Albany, NY, pp 183–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin S (1972) Human understanding: the collective use and evolution of concepts. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • von Uexküll J (1921) Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere. 2. verm. u. verb. Aufl. J. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • von Uexküll J (1928) Theoretische Biologie 2, 2nd edn. J. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • von Uexküll J (1934) A stroll through the worlds of animals and men: A picture book of invisible worlds. Semiotica 89(4):319–391. [Originally published in Schiller CH (ed) (1957) Instinctive behavior. International Universities Press, Madison, CT, 5–80]

    Google Scholar 

  • von Uexküll J (1937) The new concept of umwelt: a link between science and the humanities. Semiotica 134(1/4):111–123

    Google Scholar 

  • von Uexküll J (1940) Bedeutungslehre. J.A. Barth, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Vehkavaara T (2002) Why and how to naturalize semiotic concepts for biosemiotics. Sign Syst Stud 30(1):293–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vehkavaara T (2003) Natural self-interest, interactive representation, and the emergence of objects and Umwelt: an outline of basic semiotic concepts for biosemiotics. Sign Syst Stud 31(2):547–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vollmer G (1984) Mesocosm and objective knowledge: on problems solved by evolutionary epistemology. In: Wuketits FM (ed) Concepts and approaches in evolutionary epistemology: towards an evolutionary theory of knowledge. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 69–121

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vollmer G (1987) [1975] Evolutionäre Erkenntnistheorie, 4th edn. Hirzel, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker RH, Margulis L (1978) Protist classification and the kingdoms of organisms. Biosystems 10:3–18

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener N (1948) Cybernetics: or control and communication in the animal and the machine. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Woese CR, Kandler O, Wheelis ML (1990) Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya. PNAS 87(12):4576–4579

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wuketits FM (1989) Organisms, vital forces, and machines: classical controversies and the contemporary discussion ‘reductionism vs. holism’. In: Hoyningen-Huene P, Wuketits FM (eds) Reductionism and systems theory in the life sciences. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 85–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Wuketits FM (1992) Adaptation, representation, construction: an issue in evolutionary epistemology. Evol Cognit 2:151–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Wuketits FM (1998) Functional realism. La Nuova Crit 31–32:5–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Wuketits FM (2006) Evolutionary epistemology: the non-adaptationist approach. In: Gontier N et al (eds) Evolutionary epistemology, language and culture. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 33–46

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Parts of this paper were presented at the 19th Annual Gatherings in Biosemiotics that was held in Moscow, Russia, in 2019. We thank the audience for useful comments. We are furthermore grateful to the editors of this inspiring volume for inviting us to contribute. Gontier in addition acknowledges the financial support of FCT, the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, Grant ID DL57/2016/CP1479/CT0066 and Project IDs: UID/FIL/00678/2019 & UIDB/00678/2020.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Applied Evolutionary Epistemology Lab, Centro de Filosofia das Ciências, Departamento de História e Filosofia das Ciências, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

    Marta Facoetti & Nathalie Gontier

Authors
  1. Marta Facoetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nathalie Gontier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathalie Gontier .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Federal University of Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Juiz de Fora, Brazil

    Elena Pagni

  2. Department of Psychology, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Juiz de Fora, Brazil

    Richard Theisen Simanke

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Facoetti, M., Gontier, N. (2021). Biosemiotics and Applied Evolutionary Epistemology: A Comparison. In: Pagni, E., Theisen Simanke, R. (eds) Biosemiotics and Evolution. Interdisciplinary Evolution Research, vol 6. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85265-8_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation