Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:54:33.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimality Modeling and Explanatory Generality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Angela Potochnik
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The optimality approach to modeling natural selection has been criticized by many biologists and philosophers of biology. For instance, Lewontin (1979) argues that the optimality approach is a shortcut that will be replaced by models incorporating genetic information, if and when such models become available. In contrast, I think that optimality models have a permanent role in evolutionary study. I base my argument for this claim on what I think it takes to best explain an event. In certain contexts, optimality and game-theoretic models best explain some central types of evolutionary phenomena.

Type
Philosophy of Biology
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 74 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2006 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers. Edited by Cristina Bicchieri and Jason Alexander , December 2007 , pp. 680 - 691
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

Thanks to Michael Friedman, Helen Longino, Michael Weisberg, and especially Elliott Sober for comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

Ashmole, N. P. (1963), “The Regulation of Numbers of Tropical Oceanic Birds”, The Regulation of Numbers of Tropical Oceanic Birds 103b:458–473.Google Scholar
Brown, Joel S. (2001), “Fit of Form and Function, Diversity of Life, and Procession of Life as an Evolutionary Game”, in Orzack, Steven Hecht and Sober, Elliott (eds.), Adaptationism and Optimality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 114–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, Paul, Dobkin, David, and Wheye, Darryl (1988), The Birder’s Handbook. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Eshel, Ilan, and Feldman, Marcus W. (2001), “Optimality and Evolutionary Stability under Short-Term and Long-Term Selection”, in Orzack, Steven Hecht and Sober, Elliott (eds.), Adaptationism and Optimality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 114–160.Google Scholar
Eshel, Ilan, Feldman, Marcus W., and Bergman, Aviv (1998), “Long-Term Evolution, Short-Term Evolution, and Population Genetic Theory”, Long-Term Evolution, Short-Term Evolution, and Population Genetic Theory 191:391–396.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Alan (1981), Forms of Explanation: Rethinking the Questions in Social Theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Frank, and Pettit, Philip (1992), “In Defense of Explanatory Ecumenism”, In Defense of Explanatory Ecumenism 8:1–21.Google Scholar
Lewontin, Richard (1979), “Fitness, Survival, and Optimality”, in Horn, David, Stairs, Gordon, and Mitchell, Rodger (eds.), Analysis of Ecological Systems, Third Annual Biosciences Colloquium. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 3–21.Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst (1961). “Cause and Effect in Biology”, Science 134:1501–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Hilary (1975), “Philosophy and Our Mental Life”, in Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2. London: Cambridge University Press, 291–303.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott (1999), “The Multiple Realizability Argument against Reduction”, The Multiple Realizability Argument against Reduction 66:542–564.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott (2003), “Two Uses of Unification”, in Stadler, Friedrich (ed.), The Vienna Circle and Logical Empiricism: Re-evaluation and Future Perspectives. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strevens, Michael (2004), “The Causal and Unification Accounts of Explanation Unified—Causally”, The Causal and Unification Accounts of Explanation Unified—Causally 38:154–179.Google Scholar