排序方式: 共有14条查询结果,搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
Kim Sterelny 《Biology & philosophy》1996,11(2):193-214
The ontological dependence of one domain on another is compatible with the explanatory autonomy of the less basic domain. That autonomy results from the fact that the relationship between two domains can be very complex. In this paper I distinguish two different types of complexity, two ways the relationship between domains can fail to be transparent, both of which are relevant to evolutionary biology. Sometimes high level explanations preserve a certain type of causal or counterfactual information which would be lost at the lower level; I argue that this is central to the proper understanding of the adaptationist program. Sometimes high level kinds are multiply realised by lower level kinds: I argue that this is central to the understanding of macroevolution. 相似文献
2.
Marc Ereshefsky 《Biology & philosophy》2007,22(5):659-674
This article takes up the project of studying psychological categories as homologies. Ethologists have numerous theoretical
ideas concerning the phylogeny and ontogeny of behavioral homologies. They also have well-developed operational methods for
testing behavioral homologies. Many of these theoretical ideas and operational criteria can be applied to psychological homologies.
This paper suggests that insights from ethology should be incorporated in adaptationist and functionalist approaches to psychology.
Doing so would strengthen those approaches. 相似文献
3.
Unified explanations seek to situate the traits of human beings in a causal framework that also explains the trait values
found in nonhuman species. Disunified explanations claim that the traits of human beings are due to causal processes not at
work in the rest of nature. This paper outlines a methodology for testing hypotheses of these two types. Implications are
drawn concerning evolutionary psychology, adaptationism, and anti-adaptationism.
This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date. 相似文献
4.
Tim Lewens 《Biology & philosophy》2009,24(2):161-182
Godfrey-Smith (2001) has distinguished three types of adaptationism. This article builds on his analysis, and revises it in places, by distinguishing
seven varieties of adaptationism. This taxonomy allows us to clarify what is at stake in debates over adaptationism, and it
also helps to cement the importance of Gould and Lewontin’s ‘Spandrels’ essay. Some adaptationists have suggested that their
essay does not offer any coherent alternative to the adaptationist programme: it consists only in an exhortation to test adaptationist
hypotheses more thoroughly than was usual in the 1970s. Here it is argued that the ‘Spandrels’ paper points towards a genuinely
non-adaptationist methodology implicit in much evolutionary developmental biology. This conclusion helps to expose the links
between older debates over adaptationism and more recent questions about the property of evolvability.
相似文献
Tim LewensEmail: Email: |
5.
《Journal of biological education》2012,46(2):88-98
Protoplasmic streaming (cyclosis) in plant cells has long been presented as a purely qualitative exercise in microscopy. Using simple formulae, it is possible to determine the energetics of this process (in terms of ATP hydrolysis) and its relation to the total energy expenditure of the plant cell. This exercise can provide a valuable integration of physicochemical principles and microscopical observation. 相似文献
6.
Roger Sansom 《Biology & philosophy》2009,24(4):441-459
One current version of the internalism/externalism debate in evolutionary theory focuses on the relative importance of developmental
constraints in evolutionary explanation. The received view of developmental constraints sees them as an internalist concept
that tend to be shared across related species as opposed to selective pressures that are not. Thus, to the extent that constraints
can explain anything, they can better explain similarity across species, while natural selection is better able to explain
their differences. I challenge both of these aspects of the received view and propose a hierarchical view of constraints.
相似文献
Roger SansomEmail: |
7.
Debates over adaptationism can be clarified and partially resolved by careful consideration of the ‘grain’ at which evolutionary
processes are described. The framework of ‘adaptive landscapes’ can be used to illustrate and facilitate this investigation.
We argue that natural selection may have special status at an intermediate grain of analysis of evolutionary processes. The
cases of sickle-cell disease and genomic imprinting are used as case studies.
相似文献
Peter Godfrey-SmithEmail: |
8.
Angela Potochnik 《Biology & philosophy》2009,24(2):183-197
The fate of optimality modeling is typically linked to that of adaptationism: the two are thought to stand or fall together
(Gould and Lewontin, Proc Relig Soc Lond 205:581–598, 1979; Orzack and Sober, Am Nat 143(3):361–380, 1994). I argue here that
this is mistaken. The debate over adaptationism has tended to focus on one particular use of optimality models, which I refer
to here as their strong use. The strong use of an optimality model involves the claim that selection is the only important
influence on the evolutionary outcome in question and is thus linked to adaptationism. However, biologists seldom intend this
strong use of optimality models. One common alternative that I term the weak use simply involves the claim that an optimality
model accurately represents the role of selection in bringing about the outcome. This and other weaker uses of optimality
models insulate the optimality approach from criticisms of adaptationism, and they account for the prominence of optimality
modeling (broadly construed) in population biology. The centrality of these uses of optimality models ensures a continuing
role for the optimality approach, regardless of the fate of adaptationism.
相似文献
Angela PotochnikEmail: |
9.
Gillian Barker 《Biology & philosophy》2008,23(1):1-25
Two critiques of simple adaptationism are distinguished: anti-adaptationism and extended adaptationism. Adaptationists and
anti-adaptationists share the presumption that an evolutionary explanation should identify the dominant simple cause of the
evolutionary outcome to be explained. A consideration of extended-adaptationist models such as coevolution, niche construction
and extended phenotypes reveals the inappropriateness of this presumption in explaining the evolution of certain important
kinds of features—those that play particular roles in the regulation of organic processes, especially behavior. These biological
or behavioral ‘levers’ are distinctively available for adaptation and exaptation by their possessors and for co-optation by
other organisms. As a result they are likely to result from a distinctive and complex type of evolutionary process that conforms
neither to simple adaptationist nor to anti-adaptationist styles of explanation. Many of the human features whose evolutionary
explanation is most controversial belong to this category, including the female orgasm.
相似文献
Gillian BarkerEmail: |
10.
Mohan Matthen 《Biology & philosophy》2007,22(5):675-689
The specialization of visual function within biological function is reason for introducing “homology thinking” into explanations
of the visual system. It is argued that such specialization arises when organisms evolve by differentiation from their predecessors.
Thus, it is essentially historical, and visual function should be regarded as a lineage property. The colour vision of birds and mammals do not function the same way as one another, on this account, because each is an adaptation
to special needs of the visual functions of predecessors—very different kinds of predecessors in each case. Thus, history
underlies function. We also see how homology thinking figures in the hierarchical classification of visual systems, and how
it supports the explanation of visual function by functional role analysis.
相似文献
Mohan MatthenEmail: |