Problems with Using Evolutionary Theory in Philosophy

Abstract

Does science move toward truths? Are present scientific theories (approximately) true? Should we invoke truths to explain the success of science? Do our cognitive faculties track truths? Some philosophers say yes, while others say no, to these questions. Interestingly, both groups use the same scientific theory, viz., evolutionary theory, to defend their positions. I argue that it begs the question for the former group to do so because their positive answers imply that evolutionary theory is warranted, whereas it is self-defeating for the latter group to do so because their negative answers imply that evolutionary theory is unwarranted.

The realist and selectionist explanations for the success of science

“…If he is right about successive paradigms, evolutionary theory is no closer to the truth than its predecessor, and hence it is false. Therefore, Kuhn's philosophical account of science, which appeals to a false scientific theory, is false (Park, 2017). Lee's (2021) position is similar to those of Stathis Psillos (1999, pp.…”

“…For example, Psillos claims that theories are successful because they are true, just as elephants have long noses because they have certain genes. He assumes the truth of evolutionary theory, which embeds the notion of genes in order to establish the truth of successful theories, including evolutionary theory (Park, 2017).…”