Fitness and Propensity’s Annulment?

Biology and Philosophy 22 (1):115-130 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

  Recent debate on the nature of probabilities in evolutionary biology has focused largely on the propensity interpretation of fitness (PIF), which defines fitness in terms of a conception of probability known as “propensity”. However, proponents of this conception of fitness have misconceived the role of probability in the constitution of fitness. First, discussions of probability and fitness have almost always focused on organism effect probability, the probability that an organism and its environment cause effects. I argue that much of the probability relevant to fitness must be organism circumstance probability, the probability that an organism encounters particular, detailed circumstances within an environment, circumstances which are not the organism’s effects. Second, I argue in favor of the view that organism effect propensities either don’t exist or are not part of the basis of fitness, because they usually have values close to 0 or 1. More generally, I try to show that it is possible to develop a clearer conception of the role of probability in biological processes than earlier discussions have allowed

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 83,948

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The propensity interpretation of fitness.Susan K. Mills & John H. Beatty - 1979 - Philosophy of Science 46 (2):263-286.
Environment, Equivalence Inferences, and the Twins: A Reply to Sober.T. Y. William Wong - 2021 - Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 13:1-12.
Levels, Time and Fitness in Evolutionary Transitions in Individuality.Pierrick Bourrat - 2015 - Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 7 (20150505).
Assessing the fitness landscape revolution.Brett Calcott - 2008 - Biology and Philosophy 23 (5):639-657.
A Defense of Propensity Interpretations of Fitness.Robert C. Richardson & Richard M. Burian - 1992 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:349 - 362.
New Ways to Look at Fitness.Wim J. Van der Steen - 1994 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 16 (3):479 - 492.
Are Probabilities Necessary For Evolutionary Explanations?André Ariew - 1998 - Biology and Philosophy 13 (2):245-253.
A New Foundation for the Propensity Interpretation of Fitness.Charles H. Pence & Grant Ramsey - 2013 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (4):851-881.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
110 (#129,685)

6 months
7 (#130,471)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Marshall Abrams
University of Alabama, Birmingham

References found in this work

The meaning of 'meaning'.Hillary Putnam - 1975 - Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7:131-193.
Philosophical Papers Vol. II.David K. Lewis (ed.) - 1986 - Oxford University Press.
Philosophy of Biology.Elliott Sober - 1993 - Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Causal relations.Donald Davidson - 1967 - Journal of Philosophy 64 (21):691-703.

View all 47 references / Add more references