Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:10:08.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cultural Inheritance in Generalized Darwinism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Christian J. Feldbacher-Escamilla  and
Karim Baraghith
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Generalized Darwinism models cultural development as an evolutionary process, where traits evolve through variation, selection, and inheritance. Inheritance describes either a discrete unit’s transmission or a mixing of traits (i.e., blending inheritance). In this article, we compare classical models of cultural evolution and generalized population dynamics with respect to blending inheritance. We identify problems of these models and introduce our model, which combines relevant features of both. Blending is implemented as success-based social learning, which can be shown to be an optimal strategy.

Type
Articles
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 87 , Issue 2 , April 2020 , pp. 237 - 261
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

Footnotes

†

For the valuable feedback and constructive criticism on earlier drafts of this article, we would like to thank Pete Richerson, Charles Beasley, Marieke Williams, and Sarah Uhrig; the audiences in Copenhagen (Nordic Network for Philosophy of Science 2017), Düsseldorf (Generalized Darwinism 2018), and Leuven (Human Success 2019); and particularly two anonymous reviewers of this journal.

References

Aldrich, H. E., Hodgson, G. M., Hull, D. L., Knudsen, T., Mokyr, J., and Vanberg, V. J. 2008. “In Defence of Generalized Darwinism.” Journal of Evolutionary Economics 18 (5): 577–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R., and Richerson, P. J. 1988. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. 1950/1962. Logical Foundations of Probability. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Cesa-Bianchi, N., and Lugosi, G. 2006. Prediction, Learning, and Games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claidière, N., and Sperber, D. 2007. “The Role of Attraction in Cultural Evolution.” Journal of Cognition and Culture 7:89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crozier, G. K. D. 2008. “Reconsidering Cultural Selection Theory.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (3): 455–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldbacher-Escamilla, C. J. 2018. “An Optimality-Argument for Equal Weighting.” Synthese. doi:10.1007/s11229-018-02028-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., and the ABC Research Group. 1999. Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Griffiths, T. L., and Kalish, M. L. 2007. “Language Evolution by Iterated Learning with Bayesian Agents.” Cognitive Science 31:441–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haldane, J. B. 1964/2008. “A Defense of Beanbag Genetics.” International Journal of Epidemiology 37 (3): 435–42.Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Boyd, R., and Richerson, P. J. 2008. “Five Misunderstandings about Cultural Evolution.” Human Nature 19 (2): 119–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lande, R. 1979. “Quantitative Genetic Analysis of Multivariate Evolution, Applied to Brain: Body Size Allometry.” Evolution 33 (1): 402–16.Google Scholar
Lewens, T. 2015. Cultural Evolution: Conceptual Challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesoudi, A. 2011. Cultural Evolution: How Darwinian Theory Can Explain Human Culture and Synthesize the Social Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, R. 1984. Language, Thought and Other Biological Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. 2005. “On Meaning, Meaning and Meaning. In On Meaning, Meaning and Meaning, ed. Millikan, R., 53–76. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Mühlenbernd, R., and Franke, M. 2014. “Meaning, Evolution, and the Structure of Society.” In Proceedings of the European Conference on Social Intelligence (ECSI-2014), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, ed. Herzig, A. and Lorini, E., 28–39. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 1283. Toulouse: University of Toulouse.Google Scholar
Ramsey, G., and Block, A. De. 2017. “Is Cultural Fitness Hopelessly Confused?” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 68 (2): 305–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reydon, T. A. C., and Scholz, M. 2014. “Searching for Darwinism in Generalized Darwinism.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 66 (3): 561–89.Google Scholar
Richerson, P. J., and Boyd, R. 2001. “Built for Speed, Not for Comfort: Darwinian Theory and Human Culture.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 23 (3/4): 425–65.Google Scholar
Richerson, P. J., and Boyd, R. 2005. Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ridley, M. 2004. Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schurz, G. 2008. “The Meta-inductivist’s Winning Strategy in the Prediction Game: A New Approach to Hume’s Problem.” Philosophy of Science 75 (3): 278–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schurz, G. 2011. Evolution in Natur und Kultur: Eine Einführung in die verallgemeinerte Evolutionstheorie. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schurz, G. 2019. Hume’s Problem Solved: The Optimality of Meta-induction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. 1997. “Selection and Attraction in Cultural Evolution.” In Structures and Norms in Science, ed. Chiara, M. Dalla, Doets, K., Mundici, D., and Benthem, J. van, 409–26. Tenth International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Florence, August 1995, vol. 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Witt, U. 2004. “On the Proper Interpretation of ‘Evolution’ in Economics and Its Implications for Production Theory.” Journal of Economic Methodology 11 (2): 125–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar