Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T00:38:07.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Levels of Selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Robert Brandon
Robert Brandon*
Affiliation:
Duke University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is a mistake to suppose that the units of selection controversy in biology centers around a single question. In this paper I will take Wimsatt's recent work (1980 and 1981) as defining the question ‘What are the units of selection?’. I will show that there is another important question, what I will call the levels of selection question, separable from the first but easily confused with it. Finally, I will try to show why the levels of selection question is important.

First I must make a terminological point. In this paper I will adopt the distinction between fitness and adaptedness. I will not defend the distinction here since that has been done elsewhere (Brandon 1978 and 1981), but I will briefly indicate what the distinction is. ‘Fitness’ in this usage refers to actual reproductive success. ‘Adaptedness’ refers to an expected fitness value, in the mathematical sense of expected value.

Type
Part VIII. Levels of Explanation in Biology
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1982 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1982 , 1982 , pp. 315 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1982

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

Asquith, P.D. and Giere, H.N. (eds.). (1981). PSA 1980 Volume 2. East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association.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.” In Asquith and Giere (1981). Pages 427–439.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1980). “Individuality and Selection.” Annual Review of Ecology and Svstematios 11: 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewontin, R.C. (1974). The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R.C. and Dunn, R. (1960). “The Evolutionary Dynamics of a Polymorphism in the House Mouse.” Genetics 45: 705–722.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayr, E. (1954). “Change of Genetic Environment and Evolution.” In Evolution as a Process. Edited by Huxley, J., et al. London: Allen and Unwin. Pages 157–180.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1963). Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, S. and Beatty, J. (1979). “The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness.” Philosophy of Science 46: 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W.C. (1971). Statistical Explanation and Statistical Relevance. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. (1981). “Holism, Individualism and the Units of Selection.” In Asquith and Giere (1981). Pages 93-121.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W.C. (1980). “Reductionistic Research Strategies and Their Biases in the Units of Selection Controversy.” In Scientific Discovery, Volume II: Historical and Scientific Case Studies. Edited by Nickles, Thomas. Dordrecht: Reidel. Pages 213–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W.C. (1981). “The Units of Selection and the Structure of the Multi-level Genome.” In Asquith and Giere (1981). Pages 122–183.Google Scholar