Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-kzqxb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-26T20:20:45.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Units of Selection and the Bases of Selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

David Walton
David Walton*
Affiliation:
Committee on the Conceptual Foundations of Science University of Chicago
*
‡Send reprint requests to the author, Committee on the Conceptual Foundations of Science, University of Chicago, 1126 East 59th Street, Room 207, Chicago, IL 60637.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A correct analysis of hierarchical selection processes must specify 1) the objects that succeed differentially as units, and 2) the properties that provide the causal bases for differential success. Here I illustrate how failing to recognize the units/bases distinction creates a contradiction in Elliott Sober's recent account of selection. A revised criterion for units of selection is developed and applied to examples at several biological levels. Criteria for bases of selection are discussed in terms of the degree of context-dependence and directness of a property's effect on the success of units. The significance of previous work by Sober, Wimsatt and Brandon is thereby clarified.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , September 1991 , pp. 417 - 435
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

I am grateful to David Hull, Ron McClamrock, Robert Richards, Elliot Sober, David Sloan Wilson and an anonymous referee for their insightful comments on this paper. I owe a special debt to William Wimsatt for his unflagging support of my work. Mardi Solomon provided much needed encouragement, for which I thank her.

References

Brandon, R. (1982), “The Levels of Selection”, in P. Asquith and T. Nickles (eds.), PSA 1982, vol. 1. East Lansing: The Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 315–323.Google Scholar
Brandon, R. (1985), “Adaptation Explanations: Are Adaptations for the Good of Replicators or Interactors?”, in B. Weber and D. Depew (eds.), Evolution at a Crossroads: The New Biology and the New Philosophy of Science. Cambridge, MA: Bradford/MIT Press, pp. 81–96.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1976), The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1980), “Individuality and Selection”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 11: 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1988), Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lande, R. and Arnold, S. (1983), “The Measurement of Selection on Correlated Characters”, Evolution 37: 1210–1226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewontin, R. (1970), “The Units of Selection”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, L. (1988), The Structure and Justification of Evolutionary Theory. Westpont, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1963), Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. (1981), “Holism, Individualism, and Units of Selection”, in P. Asquith and R. Giere (eds.), PSA 1980, vol. 2. East Lansing: The Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 93–121.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1984), The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. Cambridge, MA: Bradford/MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sober, E. and Lewontin, R. C. (1982), “Artifact, Cause, and Genic Selection”, Philosophy of Science 49: 157–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, D. (1989), “Hierarchical Selection and Exclusive Fitness”, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1966), Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. S. (1980), The Natural Selection of Populations and Communities. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. (1980), “Reductionistic Research Strategies and Their Biases in the Units of Selection Controversy”, in T. Nickles (ed.), Scientific Discovery: Case Studies, vol. 60. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 213–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W. (1981), “The Units of Selection and the Structure of the Multi-Level Genome”, in P. Asquith and R. Giere (eds.), PSA 1980, vol. 2. East Lansing: The Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 122–183.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. (1986), “Forms of Aggregativity”, in A. Donagon; A. N. Perovich, Jr.; and M. V. Wedin (eds.), Human Nature and Natural Knowledge: Essays Presented to Marjorie Grene on the Occasion of Her Seventy-Fifth Birthday. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 259–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar