Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T03:43:59.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Similarities and Differences between Evolutionary Theory and the Theories of Physics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2022

Mary B. Williams
Mary B. Williams*
Affiliation:
University of Delaware
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the 1950's and 60's there arose a plethora of claims that the structure of evolutionary theory was intrinsically different from the structures of the theories of physics—and thus from the structure that philosophers of science claimed to be the structure of scientific theories. There were claims:

  1. 1) that evolutionary theory had no laws (Smart 1963);

  2. 2) that evolutionary concepts were so peculiar that their definitions violated the ordinary standards for definitions (Beckner 1959);

  3. 3) that evolutionary theory was not axiomatizable (Beckner 1959);

  4. 4) that evolutionary theory made no falsifiable predictions (Scriven 1959, Manser 1965, Smart 1963);

  5. 5) that evolutionary biology relied on teleological explanations which violated the deductive-nomological explanation form (Hempel 1965); and

  6. 6) that evolutionary biology made significant use of narrative explanations which also violated the deductive-nomological explanation form (Goudge 1961)

Type
Part VII. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1980 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1980 , 1980 , pp. 385 - 396
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 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.)

References

Beckner, Morton. (1959). The Biological Way of Thought. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandon, R.N. (1978). “Adaptation and Evolutionary Theory.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 9: 181-200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, B. (1975). “The Reduction of Teleological Sciences.” American Philosophical Quarterly 12: 69-76.Google Scholar
Cole, L.C. (1960). “Competitive Exclusion.” Science 132: 348-349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghiselin, Michael. (1974). The Economy of Hature and the Evolution of Sex. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Goudge, T.A. (1961). The Ascent of Life. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Hull, David. (1974). Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hull, David . (1980). “Individuality and Selection.” In Annual Review of Ecology and Svstematics. Volume 11. Edited by Johnston, R.F., Frank, P.W., and Michener, C.D. . Pages 311-332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kochanski, Zdzislaw. (1973). “Conditions and Limitations of Prediction-Making in Biology.” Philosophy of Science 40: 29-50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manser, A.R. 18-34. (1965). “The Concept of Evolution.” Philosophy 40: 18-34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, S. and Beatty, J. (1979). “The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness.” Philosophy of Science 46: 263-286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, I . (1686). PhilosoPhiae natural i s prinoloia mathematica. Volume 1 of Motte's translation revised by Cajori. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966.Google Scholar
Ruse, Michael. (1973). The Philosophy of Biology. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Smart, J.J.C. (1963). Philosophy and Scientific Realism. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Waddington, C.H. (1960). “Evolutionary Adaptation.” In The Evolution of Life. Edited by Tax, Sol. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Pages 381-402.Google Scholar
Williams, Mary B. (1970). “Deducing the Consequences of Evolution: A Mathematical Model.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 29: 343-385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, Mary B. (1973a). “Falsifiable Predictions of Evolutionary Theory.” Philosophy of Science 40: 518-537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Mary B . (1973b). “The Logical Status of the Theory of Natural Selection and Other Evolutionary Controversies: Resolution by Axiomatization.” In The Methodological Unity of Science. Edited by Bunge, M.. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Pages 84-102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Mary B. (1976). “The Logical Structure of Functional Explanations in Biology.” In PSA 1976 . Volume 1. Edited by Suppe, F. and Asquith, P.D. . East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association. Pages 37-46.Google Scholar
Williams, Mary B. (1981). “Is Biology a Different Type of Science?” In Pragmatism and Purpose: Essays Presented to Thomas A. Goudge.Edited by Sumner, L.W., Slater, J.G., and Wilson, F.. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Pages 278-289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, William. (1972). “Teleology and the Logical Structure of Function Statements.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 3: 1-80.Google Scholar
Wright, Larry. (1973). “Functions.” Philosophical Review 82: 139-168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Larry. (1976). Teleological Explanations. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar