Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Incommensurability in Evolutionary Biology: The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis Controversy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Life and Mind

Part of the book series: Interdisciplinary Evolution Research ((IDER,volume 8))

  • 321 Accesses

Abstract

Evolutionary biologists today debate whether it is convenient to revise the standard theory of evolution, or if an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis is necessary. However, the conceptual relationship between the standard theory of evolution (also known as the Modern Synthesis) and a putative Extended Evolutionary Synthesis is not clear. One concept in philosophy of science that has traditionally been put in place to make sense of the conceptual relationship between competing theories or frameworks is that of Kuhnian incommensurability. In a book chapter, Pigliucci argued that the Modern Synthesis and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis are not incommensurable frameworks and that their relationship is best understood as a business-as-usual extension of our current knowledge about evolution. However, while valuable, we believe that Pigliucci’s analysis is limited in several respects. After pointing out what these limitations are, in this chapter we try to provide an alternative analysis of incommensurability between the Modern Synthesis and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. We argue that there are compelling reasons to think that both frameworks are incommensurable, thereby leaving the door open for future philosophical explorations.

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
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.

    In this chapter, we focus only on incommensurability as it is portrayed in SSR, not only because this is the notion of incommensurability that Pigliucci employs, but also because we believe it is much better suited to analyse scientific disputes than its taxonomic, post-SSR counterpart (for a comparison of both versions of incommensurability as applied to the MS versus EES controversy see Gefaell and Saborido (2022)).

  2. 2.

    However, as we will see in Sect. 3.3, this is probably not the best way to interpret observational incommensurability.

  3. 3.

    We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing this to us.

  4. 4.

    The reference to biological vocabulary, such as ‘isolation mechanism’, is no coincidence, since Kuhn employed the ‘speciation’ metaphor to understand scientific specialisation. As in allopatric speciation, where one species eventually becomes two separate ones after it is split up in two populations by a geographical barrier, making selective pressures to act differently in each population, scientific specialisation would also involve an isolation mechanism (incommensurability) and a divergence in selective pressures (different problems tackled by each group of scientists).

  5. 5.

    We will also follow Pigliucci (2017) in understanding the EES as the framework exposed in Laland et al. (2015), as we agree with him that this paper ‘is both more focused and more systematic [in its depiction of the EES] than previous attempts’ (Pigliucci 2017: 96). As for the MS, we understand it as the theoretical framework depicted in mainstream evolutionary biology textbooks, such as Ridley (2004), Freeman and Herron (2004), or Futuyma (2009). This move is not a coincidence, since Kuhn stressed the role of textbooks in establishing dominant paradigms (Kuhn 1963).

  6. 6.

    Other more recent vindications of the importance of population genetics for the MS can be seen in Ridley (2004: 93), Freeman and Herron (2004: 141), Lynch (2007), or Futuyma (2009: 220).

  7. 7.

    This can be seen, for instance, in Uller et al. (2019). These authors contrast evolutionary explanations based on natural selection acting on genes with evolutionary explanations based on developmental plasticity, physiology, and behaviour. The latter explanations include many more causal factors, and assume more complex causal chains, than the former.

  8. 8.

    It could be replied that the gene-centred ontology was disputed by some of the early proponents of the MS, notably Ernst Mayr (1963). However, even authors such as Mayr can be seen as committed to a gene-centred view of the organism. This is so because although Mayr has been known for his criticism of ‘bean-bag genetics’, he has also argued that organisms are the result of the unfolding of a genetic program (Mayr 2004).

  9. 9.

    Similar deep disagreements can be found with respect to other important evolutionary concepts, such as, for instance, ‘inheritance’ (Danchin et al. 2011; Danchin and Pocheville 2014; Uller and Helanterä 2017; see Gefaell and Saborido 2022).

  10. 10.

    Only a few advocates of the EES or EES-friendly authors adopt a more radical stance, arguing in favour of the substitution of the MS by an EES or equivalent (e.g., Noble 2015).

  11. 11.

    A third plausible scenario that has been put forward recently is to conceive the EES as a Kuhnian reformulation of the MS (Tanghe et al. 2021: 15). This entails a sort of middle-ground between a paradigm-shifting revolution and a business-as-usual extension of the established paradigm. Viewing the EES as a Kuhnian reformulation of the MS is compatible with a local form of incommensurability like the one we have suggested in this chapter. However, what a Kuhnian reformulation entails and how to precisely detect it in particular contexts is something not yet clear.

References

  • Andersen H, Hepburn B (2013) Scientific change. In: The internet encyclopedia of philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/scientific-change/. Accessed 30 May 2022

  • Baedke J, Fábregas-Tejeda A, Vergara-Silva F (2020) Does the extended evolutionary synthesis entail extended explanatory power? Biol Philos 35:20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird A (2005) Naturalizing Kuhn. Proc Aristot Soc 105:109–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird A (2008) Incommensurability naturalized. In: Soler L, Sankey H, Hoyningen-Huene P (eds) Rethinking scientific change and theory comparison. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 21–39

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chang H (2013) Incommensurability: revisiting the chemical revolution. In: Kindi V, Arabatzis T (eds) Kuhn’s structure of scientific revolutions revisited. Routledge, pp 153–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Danchin E, Charmantier A, Champagne FA, Mesoudi A, Pujol B, Blanchet S (2011) Beyond DNA: integrating inclusive inheritance into an extended theory of evolution. Nat Rev Genet 12:475–486

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Danchin E, Pocheville A (2014) Inheritance is where physiology meets evolution. J Physiol 592:2307–2317

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins R (1976) The selfish gene. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickins TE, Rahman Q (2012) The extended evolutionary synthesis and the role of soft inheritance in evolution. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 279(1740):2913–2921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky T (1937) Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fábregas-Tejeda A, Vergara-Silva F (2018) Hierarchy theory of evolution and the extended evolutionary synthesis: some epistemic bridges, some conceptual rifts. Evol Biol 45:127–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman MW, Odling-Smee J, Laland KN (2017) Why Gupta et al.’s critique of niche construction theory is off target. J Genet 96:505–508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend PK (1962) Explanation, reduction and empiricism. In: Feigl H, Maxwell G (eds) Scientific explanation, space and time. Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, vol 3. University of Minnesota Press, Minnesota, pp 28–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman S, Herron JC (2004) Evolutionary analysis. Pearson, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Futuyma DJ (2009) Evolution. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  • Futuyma DJ (2017) Evolutionary biology today and the call for an extended synthesis. Interface Focus 7:20160145

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gefaell J, Saborido C (2022) Incommensurability and the extended evolutionary synthesis: taking Kuhn seriously. Eur J Philos Sci 12:24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith P (1996) Complexity and the function of mind in nature. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta M, Prasad NG, Dey S, Joshi A, Vidya TNC (2017a) Niche construction in evolutionary theory: the construction of an academic niche? J Genet 96:491–504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta M, Prasad NG, Dey S, Joshi A, Vidya TNC (2017b) Feldman et al. do protest too much, we think. J Genet 96:509–511

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyningen-Huene P (1990) Kuhn’s conception of incommensurability. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part A 21:481–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyningen-Huene P (1993) Reconstructing scientific revolutions. Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy of science. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyningen-Huene P, Sankey H (eds) (2001) Incommensurability and related matters. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull DL (1980) Individuality and selection. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:311–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1963) The function of dogma in scientific research. In: Crombie A (ed) Scientific change. Heineman Educational Books, London, pp 347–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1977) The essential tension: selected studies in scientific tradition and change. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (2000a) Commensurability, comparability, communicability. In: Conant J, Haugeland J (eds) The road since the structure. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 33–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (2000b) The trouble with the historical philosophy of science. In: Conant J, Haugeland J (eds) The road since the structure. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 105–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (2000c) Afterwards. In: Conant J, Haugeland J (eds) The road since the structure. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 224–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Laland KN (2017) Schism and synthesis at the Royal Society. Trends Ecol Evol 32:316–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Laland KN (2018) Evolution unleashed. Aeon. https://aeon.co/essays/science-in-flux-is-a-revolution-brewing-in-evolutionary-theory. Accessed 26 Oct 2021

  • Laland KN, Odling-Smee J, Hoppitt W, Uller T (2013) More on how and why: cause and effect in biology revisited. Biol Philos 28:719–745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laland KN, Sterelny K, Odling-Smee J, Hoppitt W, Uller T (2011) Cause and effect in biology revisited: is Mayr’s proximate-ultimate dichotomy still useful? Science 334:1512–1516

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Laland KN, Uller T, Feldman MW et al (2014) Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Nature 514:161–164

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Laland KN, Uller T, Feldman MW et al (2015) The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 282:20151019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch M (2007) The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:8597–8604

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez M, Esposito M (2014) Multilevel causation and the extended synthesis. Biol Theory 9:209–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1963) Animal species and evolution. Harvard University Press, Harvard

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1961) Cause and effect in biology. Science 134:1501–1506

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1994) The advance of science and scientific revolutions. J Hist Behav Sci 30:328–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (2004) What makes biology unique? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mesoudi A, Blanchet S, Charmantier A et al (2013) Is non-genetic inheritance just a proximate mechanism? A corroboration of the extended evolutionary synthesis. Biol Theory 7:189–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller GB (2007) Evo-devo: extending the evolutionary synthesis. Nat Rev Genet 8:943–949

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Müller GB (2017) Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary. Interface Focus 7:20170015

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Noble D (2012) A theory of biological relativity: no privileged level of causation. Interface Focus 2:55–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Noble D (2015) Evolution beyond neo-Darwinism: a new conceptual framework. J Exp Biol 218:7–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Odling-Smee J, Laland KN, Feldman MW (2003) Niche construction: the neglected process in evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci M (2007) Do we need an extended evolutionary synthesis? Evolution 61:2743–2749

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci M (2009) An extended synthesis for evolutionary biology. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1168:218–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci M (2012) Biology’s last paradigm shift. Paradigmi 3:45–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci M (2017) Darwinism after the modern synthesis. In: Delisle RG (ed) The Darwinian tradition in context: research programs in evolutionary biology. Springer International Publishing, pp 89–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci M, Müller GB (eds) (2010) Evolution, the extended synthesis. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Politi V (2018) Scientific revolutions, specialization and the discovery of the structure of DNA: toward a new picture of the development of the sciences. Synthese 195:2267–2293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Politi V (2019) Specialisation and the incommensurability among scientific specialties. J Gen Philos Sci 50:129–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Provine WB (1971) The origins of theoretical population genetics. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Psillos S (2018) Realism and theory change in science. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-theory-change/. Accessed 31 May 2022

  • Ridley M (2004) Evolution. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouse J (2003) Kuhn’s philosophy of scientific practice. In: Nickles T (ed) Thomas Kuhn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 101–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Sankey H (1993) Kuhn’s changing concept of incommensurability. Br J Philos Sci 44:759–774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott-Phillips TC, Laland KN, Shuker DM et al (2014) The niche construction perspective: a critical appraisal. Evolution 68:1231–1243

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Smocovitis VB (1992) Unifying biology: the evolutionary synthesis and evolutionary biology. J Hist Biol 25:1–65

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Svensson EI (2023) The structure of evolutionary theory: beyond neo-Darwinism, neo-Lamarckism and biased historical narratives about the modern synthesis. In: Dickins TE, Dickins BJA (eds) Evolutionary biology: contemporary and historical reflections upon core theory. Springer, pp 173–217

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tanghe KB, De Tiège A, Pauwels L, Blancke S, Braeckman J (2018) What’s wrong with the modern evolutionary synthesis? A critical reply to Welch (2017). Biol Philos 33:23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanghe KB, Pauwels L, De Tiège A, Braeckman J (2021) Interpreting the history of evolutionary biology through a Kuhnian prism: sense or nonsense? Perspect Sci 29:1–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uller T, Feiner N, Radersma R et al (2019) Developmental plasticity and evolutionary explanations. Evol Dev 2:47–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Uller T, Helanterä H (2017) Heredity and evolutionary theory. In: Walsh D, Huneman P (eds) Challenging the modern synthesis: adaptation, development, and inheritance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 280–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Uller T, Helanterä H (2019) Niche construction and conceptual change in evolutionary biology. Br J Philos Sci 70:351–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh DM (2015) Organisms, agency, and evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh DM (2016) Challenges to evolutionary theory. In: Humphreys P (ed) The Oxford handbook of philosophy of science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 671–694

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch JJ (2017) What’s wrong with evolutionary biology? Biol Philos 32:263–279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wray KB (2005) Rethinking scientific specialization. Soc Stud Sci 35:151–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wray KB (2011) Kuhn’s evolutionary social epistemology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Mariano Sanjuán and José Manuel Viejo for the opportunity to participate in this volume. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism on the early versions of this chapter, which helped to significantly improve it. Juan Gefaell is funded by a Xunta de Galicia Predoctoral Research Contract (ED481A-2021/274). Cristian Saborido is grateful for funding from the Spanish Ministry of Science (PID2021-128835NB-100 research project).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centro de Investigación Mariña, Departamento de Bioquímica, Genética e Inmunología, Universidade de Vigo, Vigo, Spain

    Juan Gefaell

  2. Department of Logic, History and Philosophy of Science, UNED, Madrid, Spain

    Cristian Saborido

Authors
  1. Juan Gefaell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cristian Saborido
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan Gefaell .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    José Manuel Viejo

  2. Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Mariano Sanjuán

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gefaell, J., Saborido, C. (2023). Incommensurability in Evolutionary Biology: The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis Controversy. In: Viejo, J.M., Sanjuán, M. (eds) Life and Mind. Interdisciplinary Evolution Research, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30304-3_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation