Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:25:57.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Propensity Interpretation of ‘Fitness‘—No Interpretation is No Substitute

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Robert Brandon  and
John Beatty
Robert Brandon
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Duke University
John Beatty
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Arizona State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , June 1984 , pp. 342 - 347
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1984

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.)

References

Beatty, J. (1980), “Optimal Design Models and the Strategy of Model Building in Evolutionary Biology”, Philosophy of Science 47: 532–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beatty, J. (1981), “What's Wrong with the Received View of Evolutionary Theory?”, PSA 1980, Volume 2, Giere, R. and Asquith, P. (eds.). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 397–426.Google Scholar
Brandon, R. N. (1978), “Adaptation and Evolutionary Theory”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 9: 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandon, R. N. (1981), “A Structural Description of Evolutionary Theory”, PSA 1980, Volume 2, Giere, R. and Asquith, P. (eds.). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 427–439.Google Scholar
Burian, R. (1983), “Adaptation”, Dimensions of Darwinism: Themes and Counterthemes in Twentieth Century Evolutionary Theories, Grene, M. (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1978), “Optimization Theory in Evolution”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 9: 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, S. K. and Beatty, J. (1979), “The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness”, Philosophy of Science 46: 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1978), “The Supervenience of Biological Concepts”, Philosophy of Science 45: 368–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1982), “On the Propensity Definition of Fitness”, Philosophy of Science 49: 268–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1983), “Fitness”, The Journal of Philosophy LXXX: 457–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, M. (1973), The Philosophy of Biology. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1981), “Evolutionary Theory and the Ontological Status of Properties”, Philosophical Studies 40: 147–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. B. (1970), “Deducing the Consequences of Evolution: A Mathematical Model”, Journal of Theoretical Biology 29: 343–385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed