Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T02:58:02.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explanatory Pluralism in Paleobiology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Todd A. Grantham
Todd A. Grantham*
Affiliation:
College of Charleston
*
†Department of Philosophy, College of Charleston, Charleston, SC 29424.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper is a defense of “explanatory pluralism” (i.e., the view that some events can be correctly explained in two distinct ways). To defend pluralism, I identify two distinct (but compatible) styles of explanation in paleobiology. The first approach (“actual sequence explanation”) traces out the particular forces that affect each species. The second approach treats the trend as “passive” or “random” diffusion away from a boundary in morphological space. I argue that while these strategies are distinct, some trends are correctly explained in both ways. Further, since neither strategy can be reduced or eliminated from paleobiology, we should accept that both strategies can provide correct explanations for a single trend.

Type
Philosophy of Biology
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 66 , Issue S3: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers Sep., 1999 , 1999 , pp. S223 - S236
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by 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

‡

Thanks to John Bickle, Carla Fehr, David Jablonski, Dan McShea, and Shaun Nichols for generous and helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

Beatty, John (1995), “The Evolutionary Contingency Thesis”, in Wolters, Gereon and Lennox, James (eds.), Concepts, Theories, and Rationality in the Biological Sciences. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 45–81.Google Scholar
Bock, Walter J. (1979), “The Synthetic Explanation of Macroevolutionary Change: A Reductionistic Approach”, Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History 13: 20–69.Google Scholar
Charlesworth, Brian, Lande, Russell, and Slatkin, Montgomery (1982), “A Neo-Darwinian Commentary on Macroevoluion”, Evolution 36: 474–498.Google Scholar
Dugatkin, Lee A. and Reeve, Hudson K. (1994), “Behavioral Ecology and Levels of Selection: Dissolving the Group Selection Controversy”, Advances in the Study of Behavior 23: 101–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Futuyma, Douglas (1986), Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.Google ScholarPubMed
Gould, Steven (1988), “Trends as Changes in Variance: A new slant on progress and directionality in evolution”, Journal of Paleontology 62: 319–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, Steven. (1990), “Speciation and Sorting As the Source of Evolutionary Trends, or Things are Seldom What They Seem,” in McNamara, Kenneth (ed.), Evolutionary Trends. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 3–27.Google Scholar
Horgan, John (1997), The End of Science. New York: Broadway Books.Google Scholar
Jablonski, David (1996), “Body Size and Macroevolution” in Jablonski, D. et al. (eds.), Evolutionary Paleobiology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 256–289.Google Scholar
Jablonski, David. (1997), “Body Size Evolution in Cretaceous Molluscs and the Status of Cope's Rule”, Nature 385: 250–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon (1993), Supervenience and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kincaid, Harold (1997), Individualism and the Unity of Science. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
MacFadden, Bruce (1986), “Fossil Horses from “Eohippus” (Hyracotherium) to Equus: Scaling, Cope's Law and the Evolution of Body Size”, Paleobiology 12: 355–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, John (1987), “How to Model Evolution”, in Dupre, John (ed.), The Latest on the Best. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 119–131.Google Scholar
McKinney, Michael (1990a), “Classifying and Analyzing Evolutionary Trends”, in McNamara, Kenneth J. (ed.), Evolutionary Trends. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press, 28–58.Google Scholar
McKinney, Michael. (1990b), “Trends in Body Size Evolution”, in McNamara, Kenneth J. (ed.), Evolutionary Trends. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 75–118.Google Scholar
McShea, Dan (1991), “Complexity and Evolution: What Everybody Knows,” Biology and Philosophy 6: 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McShea, Dan. (1993), “Evolutionary Change in the Morphological Complexity of the Mammalian Vertebral Column”, Evolution 47: 730–740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McShea, Dan. (1994), “Mechanisms of Large-Scale Evolutionary Trends”, Evolution 48: 1747–1763.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, Sandra (1992), “On Pluralism and Competition in Evolutionary Explanations”, American Zoologist 32: 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitecki, Matthew (ed.) (1988), Evolutionary Progress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ridley, Mark (1993), Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley (1971), Statistical Explanation and Statistical Relevance. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, Steven (1973), “An Explanation for Cope's Rule”, Evolution 27: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sterelny, Kim (1996), “Explanatory Pluralism in Evolutionary Biology”, Biology and Philosophy 11: 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, C. Kenneth (1991) “Tempered Realism about the Force of Selection”, Philosophy of Science 58: 553–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar