Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-s9k8s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-20T08:50:42.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Semantic Approach and its application to Evolutionary Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Elisabeth A. Lloyd
Elisabeth A. Lloyd*
Affiliation:
University of California-Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The semantic view of theory structure, as developed by Suppes (1957,1967), Suppe (1974, 1976, 1977, 1988), and van Fraassen (1970, 1972, 1980), represents theories as classes of models or structures. These models are, on the version of the semantic approach used here, defined by specifying their laws, parameters, and variables. The semantic approach to theory structure is simply a method of formalizing the content of scientific theories.

In a series of articles and a book, I have analyzed the structure of modern evolutionary theory using the semantic view as a framework (Lloyd 1984, 1986a, 1986b, 1987a, 1987b, 1988, forthcoming; cf. Thompson 1983, 1985, 1988). I shall briefly recap the analyses I have done, in order to demonstrate the range of problems accessible to the semantic view.

First, I have used the semantic view to analyze the structure of population genetics models, including kin and group selection models.

Type
Part IX. Biology
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1988 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1988 , 1988 , pp. 278 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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

1

I would like to thank Bas van Fraassen, Michael Dietrich, and James Griesemer for their helpful comments and discussion.

References

Brandon, R. (1981), “A Structural Description of Evolutionary Theory”, PSA 1980, volume 2, 427–439. East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Brandon, R. (1982), “The Levels of Selection”, PSA 1982, volume 1, 315–323. East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Darden, L. and Maull, N. (1977), “Interfield Theories”, Philosophy of Science 1: 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldredge, N. and Cracraft, J. (1980), Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process. new York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. and Gould, S.J. (1972), “Punctuated equilibria: An alternative to phyletic gradualism”, in Models in Paleobiology, Schopf, T.J.M. (ed.). San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, pp. 82–115.Google Scholar
Giere, R. (1988), Explaining Science. Chicago: University of Chicago PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S.J. and Eldredge, N. (1977) “Punctuated equilibria: Tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered”, Paleobiology 3: 115–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griesemer, J.R. (ms), “Ecology and Abstraction: Theoretical Modeling in the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology”.Google Scholar
Griesemer, J.R. and Wade, M. (1988), “Laboratory Models, causal explanation, and group selection”, Biology and Philosophy 3: 67–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horan, B. (1989), “Theoretical models, biological complexity, and the semantic view of theories”, PSA 1988, volume 2, 265–277. East Lansing, Mich.: Phillosophy of Science.Google Scholar
Hull, D.H. (1974), Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Lloyd, E.A. (1983), “The Structure of Darwin's support for the theory of natural selection”, Philosophy of Science 50:112–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, E.A. (1984), “A semantic approach to the structure of population genetics”, Philosophy of Science 51: 242–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, E.A. (1986a), “Thinking about models in evolutionary theory”, Philosophica 37: 87–100.Google Scholar
Lloyd, E.A. (1986b), “Evaluation of evidence in group selection debates”, PSA 1986, volume 1, 483–493. East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Lloyd, E.A. (1987a), “Confirmation of evolutionary and ecological models”, Biology and Philosophy 2: 277–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, E.A. (1987b), “Response to Sloep and Van der Steen”, Biology and Philosophy 2: 23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, E.A. (1988), The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, E.A. (forthcoming), “A structural approach to defining units of selection”, Philosophy of Science 56.Google Scholar
Lloyd, E.A. and Gould, S.J. (ms), “Species selection on variability”.Google Scholar
Sterelny, K. and Kitcher, P. (1988), “The return of the gene”, Journal of Philosophy 85: 339–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppe, F. (1974), “Some philosophical problems in biological speciation and taxonomy”, in Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge, Wojcieckowske, J.A. (ed.). Munich: Verlag Dokumentation, pp. 190–243.Google Scholar
Suppe, F. (1976), “Theoretical Laws”, in Formal Methods of the Methodology of Science, Prezelecke, M., Szaniawski, K. and Wojcicki, R. (eds.). Wroclow: Ossolineum, pp. 247–267.Google Scholar
Suppe, F. (1977), The Structure of Scientific Theories (2nd ed.) Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Suppe, F. (1988), The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1957), Introduction to Logic. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1967), “What is a scientific theory?”, in Philosophy of Science Today, Morgenbesser, S. (ed.). New York: Meridian, pp. 55–67.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. (1983), “The structure of evolutionary theory: A semantic perspective”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 14: 215–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, P. (1985), “Sociobiological explanation and the testability of sociobiological theory”, in Sociobiology and Epistemology, Fetzer, J.H. (ed.). Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, P. (1988) The Structure of Biological Theories. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B.C. (1970), “On the extension of Beth's semantics of physical theories”, Philosophy of Science 37: 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B.C. (1972), “A formal approach to the philosophy of science”, in Paradigms and Paradoxes, Colodny, R. (ed.). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B.C. (1980) The Scientific Image. Oxford: ClarendonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B.C. (1985) “Empiricism in the Philosophy of Science”, in Images of Science, Churchland, P.M. and Hooker, C.A. (eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Vrba, E.S. (1984), “What is species selection?”, Systematic Zoology 33: 318–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrba, E.S. and Eldredge, N. (1984), “Individuals, hierarchies and processes: Towards a more complete evolutionary theory”, Paleobiology 10: 146–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrba, E.S. and Gould, S.J. (1986), “The hierarchical expansion of sorting and selection: Sorting and selection cannot be equated”, Paleobiology 12: 217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar