Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T16:30:22.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Elliott Sober, Evidence and Evolution: The Logic Behind the Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2008. Pp. xx + 392.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Ingo Brigandt
Ingo Brigandt*
Affiliation:
University of Alberta, Edmonton, ABT6G 2E7, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Critical Notice1
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 159 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2011

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.)

Footnotes

1

Acknowledgement: I thank an anonymous referee and Bruce Hunter for comments on a draft of this essay. The work on this paper was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Standard Research Grant 410-2008-0400).

References

Brigandt, I. 2007. ‘Typology Now: Homology and Developmental Constraints Explain Evolvability.’ Biology and Philosophy 22: 709–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brigandt, I. and Love, A.C.. 2008. ‘Reductionism in Biology.’ In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Zalta, E.N. ed. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ fall2008/entries/reduction-biologyGoogle Scholar
Buller, D.J. 2005. Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Darden, L. 1991. Theory Change in Science: Strategies from Mendelian Genetics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dembski, W.A. 1998. The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dembski, W.A. 2002. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Doolittle, W.F. and Bapteste, E.. 2007. ‘Pattern Pluralism and the Tree of Life Hypothesis.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 2043–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Downes, S.M. 1993. ‘Socializing Naturalized Philosophy of Science.’ Philosophy of Science 60: 452–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsberry, W. and Shallit, J.. 2011. ‘Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and Dembski's “Complex Specified Information.” ‘ Synthese 178: 237–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitelson, B. 2007. ‘Likelihoodism, Bayesianism, and Relational Confirmation.’ Synthese 156: 473–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitelson, B. Stephens, C. and Sober, E.. 1999. ‘How Not to Detect Design: A Review of William A. Dembski's The Design Inference — Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities.’ Philosophy of Science 66: 472–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forrest, B. and Gross, P.R.. 2004. Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friel, H. 2010. The Lomborg Deception: Setting the Record Straight about Global Warming. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Giere, R.N. 1988. Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. 2001. ‘Three Kinds of Adaptationism.’ In Adaptationism and Optimality. Orzack, S.H. and Sober, E. eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S.J. and Lewontin, R.C.. 1979. ‘The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme.’ Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B205: 581–98.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. 1983. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D.L. 1988. Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1985. Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1993. The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kourany, J.A. 2010. Philosophy of Science after Feminism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, H.E. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H.E. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H.E. 2008. ‘The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge.’ In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Zalta, E.N. ed. http://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/fall2008/entries/scientific-knowledge-socialGoogle Scholar
Michaels, D. 2008. Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mooney, C. 2005. The Republican War on Science. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Oreskes, N. and Conway, E.M.. 2010. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
Owen, R. 1843. Lectures on the Comparative Anatomy and Physiology of the Invertebrate Animals, Delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons in 1843. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans.Google Scholar
Paley, W. 1802. Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature. London: R. Faulder.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V.O. 1953. ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism.’ Philosophical Review 60: 20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W.V.O. 1969. ‘Epistemology Naturalized.’ In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, Quine, W.V.O. ed. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, R.C. 2007. Evolutionary Psychology as Maladapted Psychology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, K.F. 1976. ‘Reductionism in Biology: Prospects and Problems.’ In Proceedings of the 1974 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Cohen, R.S. and Michalos, A. eds. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Sober, E. 1988. Reconstructing the Past: Parsimony, Evolution, and Inference. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sober, E. 1993. Philosophy of Biology. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Sober, E. 1999. ‘Testability.’ Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 73: 47–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. 2007. ‘What Is Wrong with Intelligent Designヨ’ The Quarterly Review of Biology 82: 3–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weber, M. 2005. Philosophy of Experimental Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar