- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
Organizational Ecology: No Darwinian Evolution After All. A Rejoinder to Lemos
Philosophy of the Social Sciences 40 (3):504-512 (2010)
Abstract
In a recent article we argued that organizational ecology is not a Darwinian research program. John Lemos criticized our argumentation on various counts. Here we reply to some of Lemos’s criticismsAuthor's Profile
Links
PhilArchive
External links
(no proxy)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Through your library
- Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
- Configure custom resolver
My notes
Similar books and articles
In defense of organizational evolution: A reply to Reydon and Scholz.John Lemos - 2009 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 39 (3):463-474.
Darwinism and Organizational Ecology: A Case of Incompleteness or Incompatibility?Thomas Reydon - 2014 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 44 (3):365-374.
Darwinism and Organizational Ecology.Denise E. Dollimore - 2014 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 44 (3):375-382.
Darwinism and Organizational Ecology.Denise E. Dollimore - 2014 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 44 (3):375-382.
Untangling the Conceptual Issues Raised in Reydon and Scholz’s Critique of Organizational Ecology and Darwinian Populations.Denise E. Dollimore - 2014 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 44 (3):282-315.
Why organizational ecology is not a Darwinian research program.Thomas A. C. Reydon & Markus Scholz - 2009 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 39 (3):408-439.
Language and kinship: We need some Darwinian theory here.Chris Knight - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):389-390.
Theory-based ecology: a Darwinian approach.Liz Pásztor - 2016 - Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Edited by Zoltán Botta-Dukát, Gabriella Magyar, Tamás Czárán & Géza Meszéna.
Further Reflections on Lemos’s Indeterministic Weightings Model of Libertarian Free Action.Ishtiyaque Haji - 2023 - Journal of Philosophical Theological Research 25 (3):119-130.
Does God roll dice? Neutrality and determinism in evolutionary ecology.Som B. Ale, Abdel Halloway, William A. Mitchell & Christopher J. Whelan - 2019 - Biology and Philosophy 34 (1):3.
Analytics
Added to PP
2010-08-11
Downloads
45 (#343,640)
6 months
8 (#506,113)
2010-08-11
Downloads
45 (#343,640)
6 months
8 (#506,113)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
Untangling the Conceptual Issues Raised in Reydon and Scholz’s Critique of Organizational Ecology and Darwinian Populations.Denise E. Dollimore - 2014 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 44 (3):282-315.
Darwinism and Organizational Ecology: A Case of Incompleteness or Incompatibility?Thomas Reydon - 2014 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 44 (3):365-374.
References found in this work
The Selfish Gene. [REVIEW]Gunther S. Stent & Richard Dawkins - 1977 - Hastings Center Report 7 (6):33.
Why organizational ecology is not a Darwinian research program.Thomas A. C. Reydon & Markus Scholz - 2009 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 39 (3):408-439.
The Population Ecology Programme in Organisation Studies: Problems Caused by Unwarranted Theory Transfer.Markus Scholz & Thomas A. C. Reydon - 2008 - Philosophy of Management 6 (3):39-51.
In defense of organizational evolution: A reply to Reydon and Scholz.John Lemos - 2009 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 39 (3):463-474.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-6686886f5-sqlzn uwo