Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:12:51.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Models of Group Selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Deborah G. Mayo  and
Norman L. Gilinsky
Deborah G. Mayo
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Norman L. Gilinsky
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The key problem in the controversy over group selection is that of defining a criterion of group selection that identifies a distinct causal process that is irreducible to the causal process of individual selection. We aim to clarify this problem and to formulate an adequate model of irreducible group selection. We distinguish two types of group selection models, labeling them type I and type II models. Type I models are invoked to explain differences among groups in their respective rates of production of contained individuals. Type II models are invoked to explain differences among groups in their respective rates of production of distinct new groups. Taking Elliott Sober's model as an exemplar, we argue that although type I models have some biological importance—they force biologists to consider the role of group properties in influencing the fitness of organisms—they fail to identify a distinct group-level causal selection process. Type II models if properly framed, however, do identify a group-level causal selection process that is not reducible to individual selection. We propose such a type II model and apply it to some of the major candidates for group selection.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 54 , Issue 4 , December 1987 , pp. 515 - 538
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 by 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

†

We would like to thank Richard Burian, Ronald Giere, Ernst Mayr, David Hull and anonymous referees for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

Arnold, A., and Fristrup, K. (1982), “The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection: A Hierarchical Expansion”, Paleobiology 8: 113–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandon, R. (1982), “The Levels of Selection”, in Asquith, P. and Nickles, T. (eds.), PSA 1982, vol. 1. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 315–323.Google Scholar
Brandon, R. N., and Burian, R. M. (eds.) (1984), Genes, Organisms, Populations: Controversies Over the Units of Selection. Cambridge: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Bush, G. L. (1968), “Sympatric Host Race Formation and Speciation in Frugivorous Flies of the Genus Rhagoletis (Diptera, Tephritidae)”, Evolution 23: 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, G. L. (1975), “Modes of Animal Speciation”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 6: 339–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, H. L. (1971), “Speciation and the Founder Principle”, Stadler Symposia of the University of Missouri 3: 51–70.Google Scholar
Carson, H. L., and Templeton, A. R. (1984), “Genetic Revolutions in Relation to Speciation Phenomena: The Founding of New Populations”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 15: 97–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, C. (1872), The Origin of Species, 6th ed. New York: P.F. Collier & Son.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, T. (1970), Genetics of the Evolutionary Process. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Giere, R. N. (1980), “Causal Systems and Statistical Hypotheses”, in Cohen, L. J. and Hesse, M. G. (eds.), Applications of Inductive Logic. New York: Oxford, pp. 251–270.Google Scholar
Gilinsky, N. L. (1986), “Species Selection as a Causal Process”, Evolutionary Biology 20: 249–273.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1982a), “Darwinism and the Expansion of Evolutionary Theory”, Science 216: 380–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1982b), “The Meaning of Punctuated Equilibrium and its Role in Validating a Hierarchical Approach to Evolution”, in Milkman, R. (ed.), Perspectives on Evolution. Sunderland: Sinauer, pp. 83–104.Google Scholar
Hansen, T. A. (1978), “Larval Dispersal and Species Longevity in Lower Tertiary Neogastropods”, Science 199: 885–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, T. A. (1982), “Modes of Larval Dispersal in Early Tertiary Neogastropods”, Paleobiology 8: 367–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1978), “A Matter of Individuality”, Philosophy of Science 45: 335–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jablonski, D., and Lutz, R. A. (1980), “Molluscan Larval Shell Morphology”, in Rhodes, D. C. and Lutz, R. A. (eds.), Skeletal Growth of Aquatic Organisms. New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation, pp. 323–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1970), “The Units of Selection”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, D. G. (1986), “Understanding Frequency Dependent Causation”, Philosophical Studies 49: 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1954), “Change of Genetic Environment and Evolution”, in Huxley, J. (ed.), Evolution as a Process. London: Allen and Unwin, pp. 157–180.Google Scholar
Smith, J. Maynard (1976), “Group Selection”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 51: 277–283.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1981), “Holism, Individualism, and the Units of Selection”, in Asquith, P. and Giere, R. (eds.), PSA 1980, vol. 2. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 93–121.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1984), The Nature of Selection. Cambridge: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Templeton, A. R. (1981), “Mechanisms of Speciation—a Population Genetic Approach”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 12: 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrba, E., and Eldredge, N. (1984), “Individuals, Hierarchies and Processes: Toward a More Complete Evolutionary Theory”, Paleobiology 10: 146–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1966), Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. (1980), “Reductionistic Research Strategies and their Biases in the Units of Selection Controversy”, in Nickles, T. (ed.), Scientific Discovery: Case Studies, vol. 2. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 213–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W. (1981), “The Units of Selection and the Structure of the Multi-level Genome”, in Asquith, P. and Giere, R. (eds.), PSA 1980, vol. 2. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 122–183.Google Scholar