Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-l9twb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T22:52:59.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contextual Unanimity and the Units of Selection Problem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Stuart Glennan
Stuart Glennan*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy and Religion, Butler University
*
Send requests for reprints to the author, Department of Philosophy and Religion, Butler University, 4600 Sunset Ave., Indianapolis, IN 46208 [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sober and Lewontin's critique of genic selectionism is based upon the principle that a unit of selection should make a context-independent contribution to fitness. Critics have effectively shown that this principle is flawed. In this paper I show that the context independence principle is an instance of a more general principle for characterizing causes,called the contextual unanimity principle. I argue that this latter principle, while widely accepted, is erroneous. What is needed is to replace the approach to causality characterized by the contextual unanimity criterion with an approach based on the concept of causal mechanism. After sketching such an approach, I show how it can be used to shed light on the units of selection problem.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 69 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 118 - 137
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

‡

This paper is based on a talk presented at a colloquium at the University of Maryland's Center for the History and Philosophy of Science. I am grateful to the faculty and students at Maryland, and especially to Lindley Darden, for feedback. Thanks also to Ken Waters and to two referees for comments on an earlier draft of this paper and to my colleagues Tom and Becky Dolan for their insights on malaria, moths, and other things biological.

References

Brandon, Robert (1982), “The Levels of Selection”, in Asquith, Peter D. and Nickles, Thomas (eds.), PSA 1982, Vol. 1. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 315–322.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy (1979), “Causal Laws and Effective Strategies”, Causal Laws and Effective Strategies 13:419–437.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy (1989), Nature's Capacities and Their Measurement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Craver, Carl (2001), “Role Functions, Mechanisms, and Hierarchy”, Role Functions, Mechanisms, and Hierarchy 68:53–74.Google Scholar
Cummins, Robert (1975), “Functional Analysis”, Functional Analysis 72:741–765.Google Scholar
Dupré, John (1984), “Probabilistic Causality Emancipated”, Probabilistic Causality Emancipated 9:169–175.Google Scholar
Dupré, John (1993), The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dupré, John, and Cartwright, Nancy (1988), “Probability and Causality: Why Hume and Indeterminism Don't Mix”, Probability and Causality: Why Hume and Indeterminism Don't Mix 22:521–536.Google Scholar
Glennan, Stuart (1992), Mechanisms, Models and Causation. Ph.D. Dissertation. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Glennan, Stuart (1996), “Mechanisms and the Nature of Causation”, Mechanisms and the Nature of Causation 44:49–71.Google Scholar
Glennan, Stuart (1997), “Capacities, Universality, and Singularity”, Capacities, Universality, and Singularity 64:4:605–626.Google Scholar
Glennan, Stuart (forthcoming), “Rethinking Mechanistic Explanation”, Philosophy of Science 69 (Proceedings).Google Scholar
Humphreys, Paul (1989), The Chances of Explanation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffman, Stuart (1970), “Articulation of Parts Explanation in Biology and the Rational Search for Them”, in Buck, Roger C. and Cohen, R. S. (eds.), PSA 1970. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 8. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 257–272.Google Scholar
Lewis, David (1973), “Causation”, Causation 70:556–567.Google Scholar
Lewontin, Richard C. (1974), The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Elisabeth (1994), The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Peter, Machamer, Darden, Lindley, and Craver, Carl (2000), “Thinking about Mechanisms”, Thinking about Mechanisms 67:1–25.Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst (1963), Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, John Leslie (1980), The Cement of the Universe. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majerus, Michael E.N. (1998), Melanism: Evolution in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ray, Greg (1992), “Probabilistic Causality Reexamined”, Probabilistic Causality Reexamined 36:219–244.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott, and Lewontin, Richard C. (1982), “Artifact, Cause, and Genic Selection”, Artifact, Cause, and Genic Selection 49:157–180.Google Scholar
Sterelny, Kim (1996), “Explanatory Pluralism in Evolutionary Biology”, Explanatory Pluralism in Evolutionary Biology 11:193–214.Google Scholar
Sterelny, Kim, and Kitcher, Philip (1988), “The Return of the Gene”, The Return of the Gene 85:339–360.Google Scholar
Thagard, Paul (1999), How Scientists Explain Disease. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Robert P., and Mitchell, Herschel K. (1965), Genetics and Metabolism, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Waters, C. Kenneth (1991), “Tempered Realism about the Force of Selection”, Tempered Realism about the Force of Selection 58:553–573.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, William (1980), “Reductionist Research Strategies and Their Biases in the Units of Selection Controversy”, in Nickles, Tom (ed.), Scientific Discovery, Vol. 2. Dordrecht: Reidel, 213–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, William (1981), “The Units of Selection and the Structure of the Multi-Level Genome”, in Asquith, Peter and Giere, Ronald (eds.), PSA 1980, Vol. 2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 122–183.Google Scholar