The broader context for the formal darwinism project established by two of the commentators, in terms of reconciling the Modern Synthesis with Darwinian arguments over design and in terms of links to other types of selection and design, is discussed and welcomed. Some overselling of the project is admitted, in particular of whether it claims to consider all organic design. One important fundamental question raised in two commentaries is flagged but not answered of whether design is rightly represented by an (...) optimisation program, and another from one commentary of whether the coreplicon dissolves in the face of multi-generational imprinting. Calls for the project to be extended to design at levels above and below the individual are considered sympathetically, but judged impractical at the high level of abstraction of the project. All claims of substantive technical error are emphatically rejected. Close technical readings are welcomed that, among other things, represent the project as 'axiomatizing fitness'. The prospects for the project are set out in the light of this highly varied set of commentaries. (shrink)

The broader context for the formal darwinism project established by two of the commentators, in terms of reconciling the Modern Synthesis with Darwinian arguments over design and in terms of links to other types of selection and design, is discussed and welcomed. Some overselling of the project is admitted, in particular of whether it claims to consider all organic design. One important fundamental question raised in two commentaries is flagged but not answered of whether design is rightly represented by an (...) optimisation program, and another from one commentary of whether the coreplicon dissolves in the face of multi-generational imprinting. Calls for the project to be extended to design at levels above and below the individual are considered sympathetically, but judged impractical at the high level of abstraction of the project. All claims of substantive technical error are emphatically rejected. Close technical readings are welcomed that, among other things, represent the project as 'axiomatizing fitness'. The prospects for the project are set out in the light of this highly varied set of commentaries. (shrink)

This collection explores the impact of Richard Dawkins as scientist, rationalist and one of the most important thinkers alive today. Specially commissioned pieces by leading figures in science, philosophy, literature, and the media, such as Daniel C. Dennett, Matt Ridley, Steven Pinker, Philip Pullman and the Bishop of Oxford, highlight the breadth and range of Dawkins' influence on modern science and culture, from the gene's eye view of evolution to his energetic engagement in public debates on science, rationalism, and religion. (...) The volume includes personal reminiscences and critical debate as well as accessible discussions of science – it provides a stimulating tribute to a remarkable intellectual. (shrink)

In the years following its publication, F.A. Hayek's pioneering work on business cycles was regarded as an important challenge to what was later known as Keynesian macroeconomics. Today, economists are once again paying heed to Hayek's thoughts. This volume bring together his work on what causes periods of boom and bust in the economy.

One key aim of Grafen’s Formal Darwinism project is to formalize ‘modern biology’s understanding and updating of Darwin’s central argument’. In this commentary, I consider whether Grafen has succeeded in this aim.

This paper is a commentary on the focal article by Grafen and on earlier papers of his on which many of the results of this focal paper depend. Thus it is in effect a commentary on the “formal Darwinian project”, the focus of this sequence of papers. Several problems with this sequence are raised and discussed. The first of these concerns fitness maximization. It is often claimed in these papers that natural selection leads to a maximization of fitness and (...) that this view is claimed in Fisher’s “fundamental theorem of natural selection”. These claims are refuted, and various incorrect statements about the meaning and interpretation of the fundamental theorem of natural selection, in this sequence and in other papers by other authors, are discussed. Next, much of the work in this sequence rests on the first Price equation. In the deterministic (infinite population) case this equation is no more than the standard classical equation relating to changes in gene frequencies. In the stochastic case the equation gives the change in gene frequencies as the sum of two terms (the second of which vanishes in the deterministic case). These two terms are of essentially equal importance in the situation considered in the focal article, yet one of Grafen’s results ignores the second term in the stochastic analysis. This is associated with a wavering between deterministic and stochastic analyses and the use of the Price fitness concept and the classical fitness concept. These comments cast doubts on Grafen’s optimization theory. (shrink)

In die Geschichte sind Franz Josef Graf von Thun (1734-1801) und seine Frau Wilhelmine (1744-1800) als Gonner des Geniemusikers Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart eingegangen. Der "sonderbare Cavalier", wie er von Mozart genannt wurde, war seinen Zeitgenossen eher als Geisterbeschworer und Magnetiseur, denn als Musikliebhaber und Schriftsteller bekannt. Erst 2009 tauchte im Familienarchiv Thun-Hohenstein das Manuskript der umfangreichen esoterischen Enzyklopadie auf, in der Graf von Thun seine Ansichten uber den Menschen, uber das Weltall und uber die Franzosische Revolution darlegt. Ivo Cerman stellt (...) hier die Philosophie des Grafen vor dem Hintergrund des Illuminismus des 18. Jahrhunderts vor und ediert die wichtigsten Artikel seiner esoterischen Enzyklopadie. Auf der Grundlage dieser gerade entdeckten wichtigen Quelle kann die Frage nach dem Verhaltnis zwischen Aufklarung und Illuminismus neu beantwortet werden. (shrink)

Friedrich Hayek (1899–1992) remains a controversial figure, applauded by those who support the late-twentieth-century turn to neoliberalism and criticized by those who see him as the poster-boy of...

We critically examine a number of aspects of Grafen’s ‘formal Darwinism’ project. We argue that Grafen’s ‘selection-optimality’ links do not quite succeed in vindicating the working assumption made by behavioural ecologists and others—that selection will lead organisms to exhibit adaptive behaviour—since these links hold true even in the presence of strong genetic and developmental constraints. However we suggest that the selection-optimality links can profitably be viewed as constituting an axiomatic theory of fitness. Finally, we compare Grafen’s project (...) with Fisher’s ‘fundamental theorem of natural selection’, and we speculate about whether Grafen’s results can be extended to a game-theoretic setting. (shrink)

I argue that Grafen’s formal darwinism project could profitably incorporate a gene’s-eye view, as informed by the major transitions framework. In this, instead of the individual being assumed to maximise its inclusive fitness, genes are assumed to maximise their inclusive fitness. Maximisation of fitness at the individual level is not a straightforward concept because the major transitions framework shows that there are several kinds of biological individual. In addition, individuals have a definable fitness, exhibit individual-level adaptations and arise in (...) a major transition, only to the extent that the inclusive-fitness interests of genes within them coincide. Therefore, as others have suggested, the fundamental level at which fitness is maximised is the gene level. Previous reconciliations of the concepts of gene-level fitness and individual-level fitness implicitly recognise this point. Adaptations always maximise the fitness of their causative genes, but may be simple or complex. Simple adaptations may be controlled by single genes and be maladaptive at higher levels, whereas complex adaptations are controlled by multiple genes and rely on those genes having coinciding fitness interests at a higher level, for a given trait. (shrink)

We consider the question: under what circumstances can the concept of adaptation be applied to groups, rather than individuals? Gardner and Grafen (2009, J. Evol. Biol.22: 659–671) develop a novel approach to this question, building on Grafen's ‘formal Darwinism’ project, which defines adaptation in terms of links between evolutionary dynamics and optimization. They conclude that only clonal groups, and to a lesser extent groups in which reproductive competition is repressed, can be considered as adaptive units. We re-examine the (...) conditions under which the selection–optimization links hold at the group level. We focus on an important distinction between two ways of understanding the links, which have different implications regarding group adaptationism. We show how the formal Darwinism approach can be reconciled with G.C. Williams’ famous analysis of group adaptation, and we consider the relationships between group adaptation, the Price equation approach to multi-level selection, and the alternative approach based on contextual analysis. (shrink)

Individual-as-maximizing agent analogies result in a simple understanding of the functioning of the biological world. Identifying the conditions under which individuals can be regarded as fitness maximizing agents is thus of considerable interest to biologists. Here, we compare different concepts of fitness maximization, and discuss within a single framework the relationship between Hamilton’s (J Theor Biol 7:1–16, 1964) model of social interactions, Grafen’s (J Evol Biol 20:1243–1254, 2007a) formal Darwinism project, and the idea of evolutionary stable strategies. We distinguish (...) cases where phenotypic effects are additive separable or not, the latter not being covered by Grafen’s analysis. In both cases it is possible to define a maximand, in the form of an objective function ϕ(z), whose argument is the phenotype of an individual and whose derivative is proportional to Hamilton’s inclusive fitness effect. However, this maximand can be identified with the expression for fecundity or fitness only in the case of additive separable phenotypic effects, making individual-as-maximizing agent analogies unattractive (although formally correct) under general situations of social interactions. We also feel that there is an inconsistency in Grafen’s characterization of the solution of his maximization program by use of inclusive fitness arguments. His results are in conflict with those on evolutionary stable strategies obtained by applying inclusive fitness theory, and can be repaired only by changing the definition of the problem. (shrink)

This paper uses formal Darwinism as elaborated by Alan Grafen to articulate an explanatory pluralism that casts light upon two strands of controversies running across evolutionary biology, viz., the place of organisms versus genes, and the role of adaptation. Formal Darwinism shows that natural selection can be viewed either physics-style, as a dynamics of alleles, or in the style of economics as an optimizing process. After presenting such pluralism, I argue first that whereas population genetics does not support optimization, (...) optimality can still be taken as a default hypothesis when modeling evolutionary processes; and second, that organisms have an explanatory role in evolutionary theory, since they are involved in the economic perspective of optimization. Finally, in order to ask whether the Modern Synthesis can indeed provide a theory of organisms, I apply a Kantian-inspired theoretical view of organisms (underlying much developmental modeling), according to which they are both designed entities and subjects of intrinsic circular processes involving the whole organism and its parts. I first show that the design aspect is accountable for in terms of the Modern Synthesis understood in the formal Darwinism framework. I then question whether the latter aspect of organisms can also be ultimately captured in the same framework, and to this purpose devise an empirical test relying on an assessment of the relative weight of genetic elements in developmental and functional gene regulatory networks. (shrink)

Understanding good design requires addressing the question of what units undergo natural selection, thereby becoming adapted. There is, therefore, a natural connection between the formal Darwinism project (which aims to connect population genetics with the evolution of design and fitness maximization) and levels of selection issues. We argue that the formal Darwinism project offers contradictory and confusing lines of thinking concerning level(s) of selection. The project favors multicellular organisms over both the lower (cell) and higher (social group) levels as the (...) level of adaptation. Grafen offers four reasons for giving such special status to multicellular organisms: (1) they lack appreciable within-organism cell selection, (2) they have multiple features that appear contrived for the same purpose, (3) they possess a set of phenotypes, and (4) they leave offspring according to their phenotypes. We discuss why these rationales are not compelling and suggest that a more even-handed approach, in which multicellular organisms are not assumed to have special status, would be desirable for a project that aims to make progress on the foundations of evolutionary theory. (shrink)

Conspicuous consumption associated with status reinforcement behavior can be explained in terms of costly signaling, or strategic handicap theory, first articulated by Zahavi and later formalized by Grafen. A theory is introduced which suggests that the evolutionary raison d’être of status reinforcement behavior lies not only in its effects on lifetime reproductive success, but in its positive effects on the probability of survival through infrequent, unpredictable demographic bottlenecks. Under some circumstances, such “wasteful” displays may take the form of displays (...) of altruistic behavior and generosity on the part of high status individuals, in that is signals the ability to bear the short-term costs of being generous or “cooperative,” while at the same time reinforcing the long-term benefits of higher status. (shrink)

The Formal Darwinism Project is an attempt to use mathematical theory to prove the claim that fitness maximization is the outcome of evolution in nature. Grafen’s (2014, p. 12) conclusion from this project is that “….there is a very general expectation of something close to fitness maximisation, which will convert into fitness-maximisation unless there are particular kinds of circumstances—and further, that fitness is the same quantity for all genetic architectures.” Grafen’s claim appears to mean to him that natural (...) populations are expected to contain individuals whose traits are optimal, i.e., any given trait outperforms all reasonable alternatives. I describe why Grafen’s attempt can never provide a meaningful expectation as to the ubiquity of optimal traits in nature. This is so because it is based upon a misconception of the relationship between theory and empirical analysis. Even if one could use theory in the way Grafen proposes, I describe how his theory is causally incomplete. Finally, I describe how Grafen’s conceptual framework is ambiguous. The Formal Darwinism Project has been inspired by “On The Origin of Species” by Darwin. The great lesson of this book was Darwin’s demonstration of the necessary dialog between theory and data, with each influencing and being influenced by the other. Grafen’s Formal Darwinism Project, an attempt to create understanding of nature by removing data from this dialog, reflects a failure to understand Darwin’s great lesson. (shrink)

Darwin’s claim that Natural Selection, through optimization of fitness, explains complex biological design has not yet been properly formalized. Alan Grafen’s Formal Darwinism Project aims at providing such a formalization and at demonstrating that fitness maximization is coherent with results from Population Genetics, usually interpreted as denying it. We suggest that Grafen’s proposal suffers from some limitations linked to its concept of design as optimized fitness. In order to overcome these limitations, we propose a classification of evolutionary facts (...) based on a bi-dimensional complexity space, which adds robustness to fitness as measure of the quality of a design. In this space, each point represents an organismic architecture, and movement between two points would be an evolutionary fact. Natural Selection explains movement along the fitness axis, while non-selective mechanisms explain movement on the robustness axis. Moreover, we propose a thermodynamic metaphor to draw parallelisms between notions of fitness and entropy, robustness and energy, and movement in this space and reversible and irreversible cycles. We argue that this metaphor illustrates different evolutionary processes usually overlooked by proposals of formalization of Darwinian theory, such Grafen’s Formal Darwinism Project. (shrink)

Two questions are raised for Grafen’s formal darwinism project of aligning evolutionary dynamics under natural selection with the optimization of phenotypes for individuals of a population. The first question concerns mean fitness maximization during frequency-dependent selection; in such selection regimes, not only is mean fitness typically not maximized but it is implausible that any parameter closely related to fitness is being maximized. The second question concerns whether natural selection on inclusive fitness differences can be regarded as individual selection or (...) whether it leads to a departure from the central motivation that led to the formal darwinism project, viz., to show that “Darwinian” evolution through individual selection leads to “good design” or phenotypic adaptation through trait optimization. (shrink)

Das Ziel der von mir vorgestellten Arbeit ist zu beweisen, dass Nie-Boska komedia (Die ungöttliche Komödie) von Zygmunt Krasiński eine romantische Moralität ist. In Beziehung auf das mittelalterliche Gattungsmodell weise ich nach, dass dieses Drama des polnischen Romantikers in Anlehnung and Moralitätsschema konstruiert worden ist. Dieses Schema gibt die Voraussetzung für die im Werk enthaltene Vision der Welt und des Menschen. Die Anfangskapitel widmen sich der Rekonstruktion und Analyse der im Werk des Authors von Irydion vorgestellten Visionen von außerirdischen Gegenden (...) des Universums, weil die Erde, wie in einer typischen Moralität, nur sein Teil ist. Aus dieser übernatürlichen Wirklichkeit kommen sowohl gute, als auch böse Kräfte, die sich im Laufe des Dramas bemühen, einen Einfluss auf den Helden zu erobern. Sie möchten ihn entweder zur Errettung oder zur Verdammung bringen, was in Konsequenz eine Übermacht im ewigen Ringen zwischen Gott und seinem großen Widersacher - Satan erreichen lässt. Im weiteren Teil meiner Arbeit versuche ich die Kreationsweise der in Nie-Boska komedia auftretenden Engel- und Dämonwesen zu bestimmen und auch auf eventuelle Inspirationsquellen und Entlehnungen zu weisen. Ich will auch die Methoden und Mittel zeigen, mit Hilfe deren sie auf ihr Hauptziel - den Grafen Henryk einwirken. Besonders interessant scheint die Gestalt von Pankracy zu sein, der vielleicht ein Instrument in Händen der metaphysischen Mächte ist. Das Drama von Krasiński halte ich für geistliche Geschichte vom Grafen Henryk. (shrink)

Der Vergleich zwischen Alexis de Tocqueville und Charles de Montesquieu (1689–1755) stammt nicht erst aus dem 20. Jahrhundert, sondern wurde schon von Zeitgenossen Tocquevilles gemacht, die im Autor der Démocratie en Amérique einen neuen Montesquieu sahen (OC XIII, 1, 274, FN). Nachdem Tocqueville am 21. April 1842 seine Antrittsrede an der Académie française gehalten hatte, wo er den Sitz des Grafen von Cessac übernommen hatte, antwortete ihm Mathieu Louis Molé. In dieser Antwort sagt der Cousin Tocquevilles, Letzterer habe nicht (...) nur für Amerika getan, was Montesquieu für die Römer getan hatte, sondern er habe auch gezeigt, dass Amerika Europa den Weg vorgezeichnet hat (OC XVI, 278). (shrink)

Johann Liborius Zimmermann (1702 – 1734) studierte Philosophie und theologische Moral an der Universität Jena. Dort wurde er 1725 mit einer philosophischen Dissertation promoviert und lehrte anschließend alle Gebiete dieses Fachs. Nach einer kurzen Tätigkeit als Hofprediger des Grafen von Wernigerode wechselte er 1731 zur Universität Halle, wo er bis zu seinem Tode praktische Theologie lehrte. Zimmermann greift im vorliegenden Traktat, der sich methodisch strenger, an Wolffs Methodenideal anknüpfender Prinzipien bedient, einerseits sehr frei – eklektisch – auf Wolffs Topoi (...) in dessen Metaphysik zurück und bleibt andererseits Grundüberzeugungen treu, die sich der Tradition des Thomasianismus verdanken, insbesondere was die praktische Ausrichtung und Nützlichleit der Philosophie betrifft; darüberhinaus wird gerade diese Ausrichtung unter pietistischem Einfluss noch theologisch überhöht. Dies verleiht insgesamt seiner Metaphysik eine singuläre Gestalt. Johann Liborius Zimmermann (1702-1734) studied theology and theological morals at the University of Jena. In 1725 he gained his doctorate in philosophy and went on to teach in all areas of this subject. After a short period as court preacher to the Count of Wernigerode, he moved in 1731 to the University of Halle where he taught practical theology until his death. In this treatise Zimmermann, who uses stricter principles based on Wolff’s ideal method, in part refers very freely – eclectically – to the topoi in Wolff’s metaphysics and in part remains true to basic convictions from the tradition of Thomasianism, especially where the practical orientation and usefulness of philosophy are concerned; in addition, this very orientation, influenced by Pietism, is elevated in theological terms. All of this lends his metaphysics a singular character. (shrink)

The story of the fall and rise of Zahavi’s handicap principle is one of a battle between models. Early attempts at formal modeling produced negative results and, unsurprisingly, scepticism about the principle. A major change came in 1990 with Grafen’s production of coherent models of a handicap mechanism of honest signalling. This paper’s first claim is that acceptance of the principle, and its dissemination into other disciplines, has been driven principally by that, and subsequent modeling, rather than by empirical (...) results. Secondly, there is a vast literature on biological signalling but few studies that make all of the observations necessary to diagnose the handicap mechanism. My final claim is that many of the applications of costly signalling theory in other disciplines are conceptually confused. Misinterpretations of what is meant by costly signalling are common. Demonstrating that a signal is costly is insufficient and is not always necessary in order to prove that, and explain why, a signal is honest. In addition to the biological modelling of signals, there is an economic literature on the same subject. The two run in parallel in the sense that they have had little mutual interaction. Additionally, it is the biological modelling that has been picked up, and often misapplied, by other disciplines. (shrink)

Organisms can be treated as optimizers when there is consensus among their genes about what is best to be done, but genomic consensus is often lacking, especially in interactions among kin because kin share some genes but not others. Grafen adopts a majoritarian perspective in which an individual’s interests are identified with the interests of the largest coreplicon of its genome, but genomic imprinting and recombination factionalize the genome so that no faction may predominate in some interactions among kin. (...) Once intragenomic conflicts are recognized, the individual organism can be conceptualized as an arbiter among competing interests within a collective. Organismal adaptation can be recognized without phenotypes being optimized. (shrink)

The honesty of animal communication is in the spot lights in the last 30 years. During most of this time the field was dominated by one explanation: Zahavi’s handicap principle (Zahavi, J Theor Biol 67:603–605, 1975 ; Grafen, J Theor Biol 144:517–546, 1990 ). Grose (Biol Philos 2011 ) embarks to explain both the success of the theory and the empirical difficulties that exist despite this success. While I wholeheartedly agree with the criticism offered by Grose and with almost (...) all the claims he makes, the treatment of the issue is far from complete and it still leaves much to be explained. Accordingly, my commentary consist of six sections: in the first section I clear up some technical issues left unexposed, most importantly the role of strategic cost in handicap signalling; in the second section I relate this to empirical testing; in the next section I comment on the historical development of the handicap principle; in the fourth section I review the biological models that came up with conclusions that contradict the handicap principle; in the fifth section I discuss the reasons behind the success of the handicap theory; finally, in the last section I discuss the application of the handicap theory to anthropology and human sciences. (shrink)

El proyecto del ‘Darwinismo Formal’ de Alan Grafen propone una formulación matemática de la teoría de Darwin que pretende demostrar que la selección natural moldea los rasgos fenotípicos a través de la maximización de la eficacia. El proyecto de Grafen reposa sobre tres premisas: la selección natural es la única fuerza que moldea los fenotipos; la eficacia es la única medida de le evolución; y el diseño biológico surge como resultado de un proceso de optimización selectiva. En este (...) trabajo argumentamos que estas tres premisas limitan la aplicabilidad del modelo a los hechos evolutivos más simples. Esto se debe a que Grafen implícitamente presupone un concepto de eficacia que es a la vez causa y efecto de las novedades fenotípicas; lo que, por un lado, vacía la teoría de Darwin de poder explicativo y, por el otro, lleva a ignorar la potencial contribución de fuerzas evolutivas no selectivas en la configuración de la complejidad biológica. Para superar estos escollos del proyecto de del Darwinismo Formal - que son además comunes a todos los modelos formales adaptacionistas - proponemos sustituir el concepto causal de eficacia por el de robustez, definiendo así el diseño biológico como forma y función en lugar de como maximización de la eficacia. (shrink)

Dem umfassenden Führer zu den mittelalterlichen Denkmälern der griechischen Inseln wird zunächst eine Karte sowie eine kurze historische Einführung vorangestellt. Es schließt sich der Hauptteil an, der die einzelnen Inseln in alphabetischer Reihenfolge abhandelt. Dabei wird für jede Insel eine kleine schematische Karte beigefügt. Ein Glossar, eine Liste der byzantinischen Dynastien, der lateinischen und byzantinischen Kaiser in Konstantinopel, der Dogen und Grafen sowie Herren der veschiedenen Inseln runden zusammen mit einigen ausgewählten Literaturhinweisen den Führer ab. Dieser läßt sich über (...) einen Personen-Index über die topographische Ordnung hinaus auch von diesem Aspekt her gut erschließen. (shrink)

Der Band enthält bisher unveröffentlichtes, in 40 Fällen als verschollen geltendes Briefmaterial (1755 bis 1785) aus Beständen in Europa, den USA und Moskau. Darunter befinden sich u.a. Lessings frühester Bericht seiner später abgebrochenen Englandreise, Nicolais Werbung um Abbts Mitarbeit, Bittbriefe an Friedrich II., Wincklers Bemühung um interkonfessionelle Zusammenarbeit, die Schätzung der bedeutenden Hebraica-Sammlung des David Oppenheim, Briefe des Staatsministers von Carmer, des Lord Bishop von London und des Grafen Wilhelm zu Schaumburg-Lippe.