Biological progress and dominance: A reply to Janet L. Travis

Philosophy of Science 39 (3):383-387 (1972)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In a recent article in Philosophy of Science Janet Travis [13] seeks to refute the argument for evolutionary progressivism which is based on a series of dominant life forms on the grounds that there is no rigorous definition of that concept. In particular she claims that the definitions formulated by Sir Julian Huxley and George Gaylord Simpson fail adequately to exclude any group of organisms. The concept of dominance is therefore alleged to be meaningless and the argument for progress invalid.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,590

External links

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

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
21 (#173,985)

6 months
11 (#1,140,922)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Principia Ethica.George Edward Moore - 1903 - International Journal of Ethics 14 (3):377-382.
Evolution: The Modern Synthesis.Julian Huxley - 1944 - Science and Society 8 (1):90-93.
The Science of Culture.Leslie A. White - 1952 - Philosophy of Science 19 (1):87-89.

Add more references