Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-g5lq8 Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-11-04T14:16:17.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sober on Brandon on Screening-Off and the Levels of Selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Robert N. Brandon ,
Janis Antonovics ,
Richard Burian ,
Scott Carson ,
Greg Cooper ,
Paul Sheldon Davies ,
Christopher Horvath ,
Brent D. Mishler ,
Robert C. Richardson  and
Kelly Smith
...Show all authors
Robert N. Brandon*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and Department of Zoology, Duke University
*
‡Send reprint requests to Robert N. Brandon, Department of Philosophy, 201 West Duke Building, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sober (1992) has recently evaluated Brandon's (1982, 1990; see also 1985, 1988) use of Salmon's (1971) concept of screening-off in the philosophy of biology. He critiques three particular issues, each of which will be considered in this discussion.

Information

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , September 1994 , pp. 475 - 486
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1994

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

†

The authors are members of the Research Triangle Philosophy of Biology Discussion Group. We wish to thank the National Humanities Center for hosting our discussions during the 1991–1992 academic year.

References

Antonovics, J.; Ellstrand, N. C.; and Brandon, R. N. (1988), “Genetic Variation and Environmental Variation: Expectations and Experiments”, in Gottlieb, L. D. and Jain, S. K., (eds.), Plant Evolutionary Biology., London: Chapman & Hall, pp. 275–303.10.1007/978-94-009-1207-6_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandon, R. N. (1978), “Adaptation and Evolutionary Theory”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 9: 181–206.10.1016/0039-3681(78)90005-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandon, R. N. (1982), “The Levels of Selection”, in Asquith, P. and Nickles, T., (eds.), PSA 1, vol. 1. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 315–323.Google Scholar
Brandon, R. N. (1985), “Adaptation Explanations: Are Adaptations for the Good of Replicators or Interactors?”, in Weber, B. and Depew, D., (eds.), The Role of Behavior in Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 51–71.Google Scholar
Brandon, R. N. (1990), Adaptation and Environment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1976), The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1982), The Extended Phenotype: The Gene as the Unit of Selection. Oxford: Freeman.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1981), Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 2d ed. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1980), “Individuality and Selection”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 81–96.Google Scholar
Brandon, R. N. (1986). Review of E. Sober's The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. The Philosophical Review 95: 614–617.Google Scholar
Brandon, R. N. (1988), “The Levels of Selection: A Hierarchy of Interactors”, in Plotkin, H., (ed.), The Role of Behavior in Evolution., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 51–71.Google Scholar
Brandon, R. N. (1990), Adaptation and Environment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1976), The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1981), Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1980), “Caring Groups and Selfish Genes”, in The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. (1983), “Gene, Organism and Environment”, in Bendali, D. S., (ed.), Evolution from Molecules to Men., Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 273–285.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1963), Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674865327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitton, J. B. and Grant, M. C. (1984), “Associations Among Protein Heterozygosity, Growth Rate, and Developmental Homeostasis”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 15: 479–499.10.1146/annurev.es.15.110184.002403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1959), “The Propensity Interpretation of Probability”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10: 25–42.10.1093/bjps/X.37.25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, R. C. and Burian, R. M. (1992), “A Defense of the Propensity Interpretations of Fitness”, in Hull, D., Forbes, M. and Okruhlik, K., (eds.), East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association, vol. 2. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 349–362.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1918), “On the Notion of Cause”, in Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays. London: Longmans Green, pp. 180–208.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1971), Statistical Explanation and Statistical Relevance. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.10.2307/j.ctt6wrd9pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1984), Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1989), “Four Decades of Scientific Explanation”, in Kitcher, P. and Salmon, W. C., (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 13, Scientific Explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 3–219.Google Scholar
Smith, K. C. (1992), “The New Problem of Genetics: A Reply to Gifford”, Biology and Philosophy 7: 331–348.10.1007/BF00129974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. (1984), The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1992), “Screening-Off and the Units of Selection”, Philosophy of Science 59: 142–152.10.1086/289658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stratton, D. A. (1992), “Life-Cycle Components of Selection in Erigeron annuus: I. Phenotypic Selection”, Evolution 46: 92–106.Google ScholarPubMed
Stratton, D. A. (1994), “Genotype-Environment Interactions for Survivorship of Erigeron annuus and the Scale of Selective Heterogeneity”. Unpublished manuscript.10.2307/2410251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uyenoyama, M. and Feldman, M. W. (1980), “Theories of Kin and Group Selection: A Population Genetics Perspective”, Theoretical Population Biology 17: 380–414.10.1016/0040-5809(80)90033-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waddington, C. H. (1957), The Strategy of Genes: A Discussion of Some Aspects of Theoretical Biology. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
West-Eberhard, M. J. (1989), “Phenotypic Plasticity and the Origins of Diversity”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20: 249–278.10.1146/annurev.es.20.110189.001341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1966), Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar