Sex and Selection: a Reply to Matthen

Lewens, Tim

doi:10.1093/bjps/52.3.589

Cited by 36 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some (Dawkins 1986;Neander, 1988Neander, , 1995a claim that selection plays a "creative" role; it can help explain why individuals have the traits they do. Others (Cummins 1975;Sober 1984Sober , 1995Walsh 1998;Lewens 2001;Pust 2001) claim that selection plays merely a negative role; it only eliminates variants and so cannot explain why an individual has particular simple or complex properties. The debate over the right explanatory role for selection lacks a resolution.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…9Matthen (1999: 146) argues for explanatory continuity based on the premise that in sexually reproducing populations selection affects what mates are available. TimLewens (2001) replies that sexual reproduction is not relevant, and so Matthen's arguments are flawed. My view is that selection can explain the origin of traits if it can act on multiple factors that affect the trait.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On the Explanatory Roles of Natural Selection

Forber

2005

Biol Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Can selection explain why individuals have the traits they do? This question has generated significant controversy. I will argue that the debate encompasses two separable aspects, to detrimental effect: (1) the role of selection in explaining the origin and evolution of biological traits and (2) the implications this may have for explaining why individuals have the traits they do. (1) can be settled on the basis of evolutionary theory while (2) requires additional, extra-scientific assumptions. By making a distinction between traits affected by a single factor and traits affected by multiple factors I show that selection can, under certain conditions, help explain the origin of traits. Resolving the first aspect enables us to critically assess the various incompatible and independent philosophical commitments made within the second aspect of the debate.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Explanatory Roles of Natural Selection

Forber

2005

Biol Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The view that selection can play a role in explaining why organisms have the traits they have, to put it simply, in explaining adaptation, has been defended by Neander (1995a,b, see also Millikan 1990Nanay 2005;Matthen 1999). On the other side of the trench the central figure is Sober (1984, see also Walsh 1998Dretske 1988Dretske , 1990Pust 2001;Lewens 2001;Cummins 1975). Sober (1984, Chap.…”

Section: An Argument For (Explanatory) Trope Nominalism In Biologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Population thinking as trope nominalism

Nánay

2009

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of population thinking was introduced by Ernst Mayr as the right way of thinking about the biological domain, but it is difficult to find an interpretation of this notion that is both unproblematic and does the theoretical work it was intended to do. I argue that, properly conceived, Mayr's population thinking is a version of trope nominalism: the view that biological property-types do not exist or at least they play no explanatory role. Further, although population thinking has been traditionally used to argue against essentialism about biological kinds, recently it has been suggested that it may be consistent with at least some forms of essentialismones that construe essential properties as relational. I argue that if population thinking is a version of trope nominalism, then, as Mayr originally claimed, it rules out any version of essentialism about biological kinds.

show abstract

“…The stipulated difference between these individuals and normal organisms is that each of these individuals is unconstrained by OE and so could have been produced by other organisms than actually produced them. Borrowing a term from Matthen (2003) and Lewens (2001), I'll call such individuals "abstract receptacles. "…”

Section: Multiplying Individualsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent philosophy of biology has debated at length whether natural selection can explain why individual organisms have their traits. A number of philosophers have argued that selection does not explain the traits of individual organisms (Sober 1984(Sober , 1995Walsh 1998;Lewens 2001;Pust 2001). 1 Others maintain that selection does explain the traits of individual organisms (Neander 1988(Neander , 1995aMatthen 1999Matthen , 2002Matthen , 2003.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%