Wayward Modeling: Population Genetics and Natural Selection

Glymour, Bruce

doi:10.1086/516805

Cited by 22 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…La majoria dels filòsofs de la biologia que han entrat en la discussió s'han decantat per acceptar que la noció poblacional és necessària per a albirar el poder causal de la selecció i la deriva (Stephens 2004;Reisman i Forber 2005;Millstein 2006;Shapiro i Sober 2007;Abrams 2007), encara que uns altres continuen defensant la noció causal a nivell d'individus (Glymour 2006;Gildenhuys 2011;Bourrat 2019). 21 Aquest debat, tanmateix, fa l'efecte de ser més un debat semàntic, això és, sobre termes i definicions, que un debat teòric substantiu.…”

Section: Causalitat: Processos I Productesunclassified

El debat sobre l'estructura causal de la teoria evolutiva: lleis, forces i analogies

Luque

2021

quadfia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resum: Aquest article analitza l'estructura de la teoria evolutiva i les discussions produïdes als seu voltant en les últimes dècades. En primer lloc, presente l'anomenada "interpretació de forces" o "analogia newtoniana" i la seua estructura basada en l'elaboració de tres lleis fonamentals. Més endavant, mostre les crítiques a aquesta interpretació per diferents autors, en especial l'anomenada "versió estadística" de la teoria evolutiva. Posteriorment, analitze la idoneïtat de la interpretació de forces i elabore una reformulació de la mateixa que permet explicar el seu sorgiment i la seua utilitat dins de la literatura biològica.

show abstract

Section: Causalitat: Processos I Productesunclassified

El debat sobre l'estructura causal de la teoria evolutiva: lleis, forces i analogies

Luque

2021

quadfia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2 I adopt here a causal view of selection that is becoming increasingly popular among evolutionary theorists in general (e.g. Sober 1984;Shanahan 1990;Waters 2005;Glymour 2006Glymour , 2011Godfrey-Smith 2007;Otsuka 2016), as well as among authors specifically working on multilevel selection (e.g. Arnold and Fristrup 1982;Okasha 2006;Jeler 2017).…”

Section: The Group-level Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Note Against the Use of “Belonging To” Properties in Multilevel Selection Theory

Jeler

2020

Acta Biotheor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this short paper, I argue against what I call the "belonging to" interpretation of group selection in scenarios in which a group's fitness is defined as the per capita reproductive output of the individuals of the group. According to this interpretation, group selection acts on "belonging to" properties of individuals, i.e. on relational or contextual properties that all the individuals of a group share simply by belonging to that group; thus, if differences in the individuals' "belonging to" properties cause differences in their fitness, group selection sensu the "belonging to" interpretation is said to be at work. I argue that the main problem with the "belonging to" interpretation is that it confuses evolutionary changes due to differences in environmental quality with evolutionary changes due to selection. In other words, I argue that, in the majority of cases, this interpretation actually takes the "selection" out of the "group selection" notion it aims to interpret: by adopting this perspective, one implicitly commits to explaining the evolutionary change under consideration not by a kind of selection (be it individual or group selection), but by differences in the environmental quality experienced by individual types.

show abstract

“…This is important to keep in mind, for there might well be good theoretical or practical reasons for a researcher to use contextual analysis, or something close to it, to model what is going on in a metapopulation. For instance, I am quite sympathetic to the view that modeling causes is the best method for predicting and explaining evolutionary dynamics (Glymour 2006). There is a case to be made that, with some changes, the contextual analysis equation in (1) can be understood as a structural equation, and hence as a representation of two of the causal factors of individual fitness.…”

Section: Reconciliationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Some Criticism of the Contextual Approach, and a Few Proposals

McLoone

2015

Biol Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The contextual approach is a prominent framework for thinking about group selection. Here, I highlight ambiguity about what the contextual approach is. Then, I discuss problematic entailments the contextual approach has for what processes count as group selectionentailments more troublesome than typically noted. However, Sober and Wilson's version of the Price approach, which is the main alternative to the contextual approach, is problematic too: it leads to an underappreciated paradox called the vanishing selection problem and thereby generates the wrong qualitative account of whether group selection is occurring in a certain family of cases. In response, I develop an account of group selection that can deal with the counterexamples to both the contextual approach and the Price approach. I then discuss the role that contextual analysis can continue to play in the discussion of individual fitness and metapopulation evolution.

show abstract

Wayward Modeling: Population Genetics and Natural Selection

Cited by 22 publications

References 9 publications

El debat sobre l'estructura causal de la teoria evolutiva: lleis, forces i analogies

El debat sobre l'estructura causal de la teoria evolutiva: lleis, forces i analogies

A Note Against the Use of “Belonging To” Properties in Multilevel Selection Theory

Some Criticism of the Contextual Approach, and a Few Proposals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About