Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:41:13.473Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Genic and Multilevel Selection Theories Are Here to Stay*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

C. Kenneth Waters
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I clarify the difference between pluralist and monist interpretations of levels of selection disputes. Lloyd has challenged my claim that a plurality of models correctly accounts for situations such as maintenance of the sickle-cell trait, and I revisit this example to show that competing theories don't disagree about the existence of ‘high-level’ or ‘low-level’ causes; rather, they parse these causes differently. Applying Woodward's theory of causation, I analyze Sober's distinction between ‘selection of’ versus ‘selection for’. My analysis shows that this distinction separates true causes from pseudocauses, but it also reveals that the distinction is irrelevant to the levels debate; it makes no sense to say true causes are at higher levels and not lower levels. The levels debate is not about separating real causes from pseudocauses; it's about finding useful ways to parse and disentangle causes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 72 , Issue 2 , April 2005 , pp. 311 - 333
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

‡

I thank Mark Borello, Chris Hitchcock, Ben Kerr, Richard Lewontin, Helen Longino, Roberta Millstein, Bart Moffatt, Katie Plaisance, Alex Rosenberg, Elliott Sober, and Jim Woodward for reading and commenting on a draft of this paper. Participants in the Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science pluralism project—and especially Stephen Kellert and Helen Longino—have helped me think about pluralism more clearly. Discussions with Jim Woodward and Chris Hitchcock on causation were very helpful. For a fuller account of scientific pluralism, see Kellert, Longino, and Waters forthcoming. I would also like to thank Lisa Lloyd for a stimulating correspondence and paper.

References

Brandon, Robert (1982), “The Levels of Selection”, Philosophy of Science (Proceedings): 315–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassidy, John (1978), “Philosophical Aspects of the Group Selection Controversy”, Philosophical Aspects of the Group Selection Controversy 45:575–594.Google Scholar
Dugatkin, Lee Allan, and Reeve, Hudson Kern (1994), “Behavioral Ecology and Levels of Selection: Dissolving the Group Selection Controversy”, Behavioral Ecology and Levels of Selection: Dissolving the Group Selection Controversy 23:101–133.Google Scholar
Hull, David (1980), “Individuality and Selection”, Individuality and Selection 11:311–332.Google Scholar
Kellert, Stephen, Longino, Helen, and Waters, C. Kenneth (forthcoming), “The Pluralist Stance”, in Kellert, Stephen, Longino, Helen, and Waters, C. Kenneth (eds.), Scientific Pluralism, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 19. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Kerr, Benjamin, and Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2002), “Individualist and Multilevel Perspectives on Selection in Structured Populations”, Individualist and Multilevel Perspectives on Selection in Structured Populations 17:477–517.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip, Sterelny, Kim, and Waters, C. Kenneth (1990), “The Illusory Riches of Sober’s Monism”, The Illusory Riches of Sober’s Monism 87:158–160.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Elisabeth A. ([1988] 1994), The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory. Reprint. Originally published by Greenwood Press. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Elisabeth A. (2005) “Why the Gene Will Not Return”, Why the Gene Will Not Return 72:287–310.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen (forthcoming), “Theoretical Pluralism and the Sciences of Behavior”, in Kellert, Stephen, Longino, Helen, and Waters, C. Kenneth (eds.), Scientific Pluralism, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 19. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, John (1976), “Group Selection”, Group Selection 51:277–283.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, John (2002), “Commentary on Kerr and Godfrey-Smith”, Biology and Philosophy 17:523–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okasha, Samir (2004), “Multilevel Selection, Covariance, and Contextual Analysis”, Multilevel Selection, Covariance, and Contextual Analysis 55:481–504.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans (1938), Experience and Prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliot (1984), The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliot (1990), “The Poverty of Pluralism: A Reply to Sterelny and Kitcher”, The Poverty of Pluralism: A Reply to Sterelny and Kitcher 87:151–158.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliot, and Lewontin, Richard (1982), “Artifact, Cause and Genic Selection”, Artifact, Cause and Genic Selection 47:157–180.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliot, and Wilson, David Sloan (1998), Unto Others. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliot, and Wilson, David Sloan (2002), “Perspectives and Parameterizations”, Perspectives and Parameterizations 17:529–537.Google Scholar
Sterelny, Kim, and Kitcher, Phillip (1988), “The Return of the Gene”, The Return of the Gene 85:339–361.Google Scholar
Waters, C. Kenneth (1985), “Environments, Pragmatics and Genic Selection.” Address to the American Philosophical Association, Eastern Division.Google Scholar
Waters, C. Kenneth (1991), “Tempered Realism about the Force of Selection”, Tempered Realism about the Force of Selection 58:553–573.Google Scholar
Waters, C. Kenneth (2000), “Molecules Made Biological”, Molecules Made Biological 4:539–564.Google Scholar
Waters, C. Kenneth (forthcoming), “A Pluralist Interpretation of Gene-Centered Biology”, in Kellert, Stephen, Longino, Helen, and Waters, C. Kenneth (eds.), Scientific Pluralism, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 19. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Williams, George (1966), Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Robert (2003), “Pluralism, Entwinement, and the Levels of Selection”, Pluralism, Entwinement, and the Levels of Selection 70:531–552.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, William (1980), “Reductionist Research Strategies and Their Biases in the Units of Selection Controversy”, in Nickles, Thomas (ed.), Scientific Discovery: Case Studies. Dordrecht: Reidel, 213–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, Jim (1995), “Causality and Explanation in Econometrics”, in Little, Daniel (ed.), On the Reliability of Economic Models: Essays in the Philosophy of Economics. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 9–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, Jim (2003), Making Things Happen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar