A New Foundation for the Propensity Interpretation of Fitness

British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (4):851-881 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The propensity interpretation of fitness (PIF) is commonly taken to be subject to a set of simple counterexamples. We argue that three of the most important of these are not counterexamples to the PIF itself, but only to the traditional mathematical model of this propensity: fitness as expected number of offspring. They fail to demonstrate that a new mathematical model of the PIF could not succeed where this older model fails. We then propose a new formalization of the PIF that avoids these (and other) counterexamples. By producing a counterexample-free model of the PIF, we call into question one of the primary motivations for adopting the statisticalist interpretation of fitness. In addition, this new model has the benefit of being more closely allied with contemporary mathematical biology than the traditional model of the PIF.

Other Versions

No versions found

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-07-20

Downloads
1,233 (#12,837)

6 months
175 (#19,747)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Charles H. Pence
Université Catholique de Louvain

Citations of this work

Agential Teleosemantics.Tiago Rama - 2022 - Dissertation, Autonomous University of Barcelona
A critical review of the statisticalist debate.Jun Otsuka - 2016 - Biology and Philosophy 31 (4):459-482.
Trait fitness is not a propensity, but fitness variation is.Elliott Sober - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (3):336-341.
What’s wrong with evolutionary biology?John J. Welch - 2017 - Biology and Philosophy 32 (2):263-279.

View all 42 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection.Peter Godfrey-Smith - 2009 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
Evolution and the levels of selection.Samir Okasha - 2006 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Evolution and the Levels of Selection.Samir Okasha - 2009 - Critica 41 (123):162-170.

View all 32 references / Add more references