Persistent propensities: Portrait of a familiar controversy [Book Review]

Biology and Philosophy 5 (4):379-399 (1990)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Susan Mills and John Beatty's propensity interpretation of fitness encountered very different philosophical criticisms by Alexander Rosenberg and Kenneth Waters. These criticisms and the rejoinders to them are both predictable and important. They are predictable as raisingkinds of issues typically associated with disposition concepts (this is established through a systematic review of the problems generated by Carnap's dispositional interpretation of all scientific terms). They are important as referring the resolution of these issues to the development of evolutionary biology. This historical approach to the propensity interpretation of fitness draws attention to the precarious relation between philosophical clarification of scientific concepts and any given state of the empirical arts.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,616

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
36 (#385,000)

6 months
1 (#1,040,386)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

Function, fitness and disposition.Sandra D. Mitchell - 1995 - Biology and Philosophy 10 (1):39-54.
The return of the embryo.Alan C. Love - 2005 - Biology and Philosophy 20 (2-3):567-584.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Concept of Mind.Gilbert Ryle - 1950 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1 (4):328-332.
Gambling with truth.Isaac Levi - 1967 - Cambridge,: MIT Press.

View all 40 references / Add more references