Are Probabilities Necessary For Evolutionary Explanations?

Biology and Philosophy 13 (2):245-253 (1998)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Several philosophers of science have advanced an instrumentalist thesis about the use of probabilities in evolutionary biology. I investigate the consequences of instrumentalism on evolutionary explanations. I take issue with Barbara Horan's (1994) argument that probabilities are unnecessary to explain evolutionary change given the underlying deterministic character of evolutionary processes. First, I question Horan's deterministic assumption. Then, I attempt to undermine her Laplacian argument by demonstrating that whether probabilities are necessary depends upon the sort of questions one is asking.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,709

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

Are probabilities necessary for evolutionary explanations?André Ariew - 1998 - Biology and Philosophy 13 (2):245-253.
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.
Contrastive, non-probabilistic statistical explanations.Bruce Glymour - 1998 - Philosophy of Science 65 (3):448-471.
The Logical Skeleton of Darwin's Historical Methodology.Mary B. Williams - 1986 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:514 - 521.
Explaining God Away?Kelly James Clark - 2010 - In Melville Y. Stewart (ed.), Science and Religion in Dialogue. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 514--526.
Probabilistic Explanations.James H. Fetzer - 1982 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:194-207.
Scientific explanation: A critical survey.Gerhard Schurz - 1995 - Foundations of Science 1 (3):429-465.
The propensity interpretation of fitness.Susan K. Mills & John H. Beatty - 1979 - Philosophy of Science 46 (2):263-286.
Do large probabilities explain better?Michael Strevens - 2000 - Philosophy of Science 67 (3):366-390.
How (not) to bring psychology and biology together.Mark Fedyk - 2015 - Philosophical Studies 172 (4):949-967.
Can evolution explain insanity?Dominic Murphy - 2005 - Biology and Philosophy 20 (4):745-766.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-03-29

Downloads
16 (#903,096)

6 months
10 (#263,328)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

André Ariew
University of Missouri, Columbia

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

The propensity interpretation of fitness.Susan K. Mills & John H. Beatty - 1979 - Philosophy of Science 46 (2):263-286.
Instrumental Biology or the Disunity of Science.Alexander Rosenberg - 1997 - Philosophical Quarterly 47 (186):120-122.
The statistical character of evolutionary theory.Barbara L. Horan - 1994 - Philosophy of Science 61 (1):76-95.

Add more references