The evolution of Wright’s (1932) adaptive field to contemporary interpretations and uses of fitness landscapes in the social sciences
Biology and Philosophy 30 (4):459-479 (2015)
AbstractThe concepts of adaptation and fitness have such an appeal that they have been used in other scientific domains, including the social sciences. One particular aspect of this theory transfer concerns the so-called fitness landscape models. At first sight, fitness landscapes visualize how an agent, of any kind, relates to its environment, how its position is conditional because of the mutual interaction with other agents, and the potential routes towards improved fitness. The allure of fitness landscapes is first and foremost that it represents a complex story about adaptation and fitness in one coherent image. Different accounts of fitness landscapes in different domains in the social sciences suggest that the properties and functions of fitness landscapes are attributed rather freely. These differences are testimony of the model’s versatility. At the same time, one will notice that the different approaches can also create ambiguity about the exact meaning and role of fitness landscapes in the social sciences. This article presents an extensive literature survey of the diverging interpretations and uses of fitness landscapes in the social sciences and discusses the implications in terms of how these models inform scientific inquiry
Similar books and articles
Assessing the Fitness Landscape Revolution.Brett Calcott - 2008 - Biology and Philosophy 23 (5):639-657.
Correlation Analysis of Coupled Fitness Landscapes.Wim Hordijk & Stuart A. Kauffman - 2005 - Complexity 10 (6):41-49.
Can Fitness Differences Be a Cause of Evolution?Grant Ramsey - 2013 - Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 5 (20130604):1-13.
The End of the Adaptive Landscape Metaphor?Jonathan Kaplan - 2008 - Biology and Philosophy 23 (5):625-638.
Canonical Approximation of Fitness Landscapes.Robert Happel & Peter F. Stadler - 1996 - Complexity 2 (1):53-58.
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.
Revenge: An Adaptive System for Maximizing Fitness, or a Proximate Calculation Arising From Personality and Social-Psychological Processes?Michael Potegal - 2013 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (1):33-34.
The Confusions of Fitness.André Ariew & Richard C. Lewontin - 2004 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (2):347-363.
Individuals, Groups, Fitness and Utility: Multi-Level Selection Meets Social Choice Theory.Samir Okasha - 2009 - Biology and Philosophy 24 (5):561-584.
Cliff-Edged Fitness Functions and the Persistence of Schizophrenia.Randolph M. Nesse - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (6):862-863.
Fitness as a Function.Henry Byerly - 1986 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:494 - 501.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Argumentative Landscapes: The Function of Models in Social Epistemology.N. Emrah Aydinonat, Samuli Reijula & Petri Ylikoski - 2021 - Synthese 199 (1-2):369-395.
Transfer and Templates in Scientific Modelling.Wybo Houkes & Sjoerd D. Zwart - 2019 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 77:93-100.
How to Use Fitness Landscape Models for the Analysis of Collective Decision-Making: A Case of Theory-Transfer and its Limitations.Peter Marks, Lasse Gerrits & Johannes Marx - 2019 - Biology and Philosophy 34 (1):7.
References found in this work
The Origins of Order: Self Organization and Selection in Evolution.Stuart A. Kauffman - 1993 - Oxford University Press.
The Architecture of Complexity.Herbert A. Simon - 1962 - Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 106.