Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T04:14:22.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conceptual and Logical Aspects of the ‘New’ Evolutionary Epistemology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Paul Thompson
Paul Thompson*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, CanadaM5S 1A1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The implications of evolutionary theory for a theory of knowledge have been explored by numerous writers in the period since Darwin. (See, for example: Spencer [1857]; Toulmin [1967, 1972]; Popper [1965, 1972, 1974]; Campbell [1974].) In general, these writers have developed theories of knowledge development by analogy with evolutionary theory. That is, they have developed theories which apply the mechanism of differential selection on variation to the growth of knowledge. In this sense knowledge is seen to be a function of success (often understood in pragmatic terms) in a field of alternative ideas. Knowledge evolves in much the same way as organisms with more robust ideas or ideas with greater verisimilitude or greater explanatory power or greater problem solving ability, etc. surviving from one generation to the next in the struggle for acceptance. Hence, the title ‘evolutionary epistemology.’

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume , Volume 14: Philosophy & Biology , 1988 , pp. 235 - 253
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beatty, J. (1980) ‘Optimal-Design Models and the Strategy of Model Building in Evolutionary Biology,’ Philosophy of Science 47, 532-61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beatty, J. (1981) ‘What's Wrong with the Received View of Evolutionary Theory?’ in Asquith, P.D. and Giere, R.N., eds., PSA 1980, vol. 2 (East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association).Google Scholar
Braithwaite, R. (1953) Scientific Explanation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Boyd, R. and Richerson, P.J. (1982) ‘Cultural Transmission and the Evolution of Cooperative Behavior,’ Human Ecology 10, 325-51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R. and Richerson, P.J. (1983) ‘The Cultural Transmission of Acquired Variation: Effects on Genetic Fitness,’ Journal of Theoretical Biology 100, 567-96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R. and Richerson, P.J. (1985) Culture and the Evolutionary Process (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Boden, M. (1977) Artificial Intelligence and Natural Man (Hassocks: The Harvester Press).Google Scholar
Campbell, D.T. (1974) ‘Evolutionary Epistemology,’ in Schlipp, P.A., ed. The Philosophy of Karl Popper (La Salle: Open Court Publishing), 413-63.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1936) ‘Testability and Meaning,’ Philosophy of Science 3, 420-68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1937) ‘Testability and Meaning,’ Philosophy of Science 4, 1-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1956) ‘The Methodological Character of Theoretical Concepts,’ in Feigl, H. and Scriven, M., eds., Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science vol. 1 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).Google Scholar
Callebaut, W. and Pinxten, R., eds. (1987) Evolutionary Epistemology: A Multiparadigm Approach (Dordrecht: Reidel).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1982) The Extended Phenotype (Oxford: W.H. Freeman).Google Scholar
Giere, R.N. (1979) Understanding Scientific Reasoning (New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston).Google Scholar
Giere, R.N. (1983) ‘Testing Theoretical Hypotheses,’ in Earman, J. ed. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. X: Testing Scientific Theories (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press), 269-98.Google Scholar
Heelan, P. (1970) ‘Quantum and Classical Logic: Their Respective Roles,’ Synthese 21, 2-33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. (1965) Aspects of Scientific Explanation (New York: The Free Press).Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1967) Philosophy of Natural Science (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall).Google Scholar
Hughes, R. (1981) ‘Quantum Logic,’ Scientific American 243.Google Scholar
Hull, D.L. (1974) Philosophy of Biological Science (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall).Google Scholar
Hull, D.L. (1982) ‘The Naked Meme,’ in Plotkin, H.C., ed., Learning, Development, and Culture (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons), 273-327.Google Scholar
Lloyd, E. (1983) ‘The Nature of Darwin's Support for the Theory of Natural Selection,’ Philosophy of Science 50, 112-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, E. (1984) ‘A Semantic Approach to the Structure of Population Genetics,’ Philosophy of Science 51, 242-64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, E. (1986) ‘Thinking about Models in Evolutionary Theory,’ Philosophica 37.Google Scholar
Lloyd, E. (1987) ‘Confirmation of Ecological and Evolutionary Models,’ Biology and Philosophy 2, 277-93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lumsden, C. and Wilson, E.O. (1981) Genes, Mind and Culture (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Lumsden, C. and Wilson, E.O. (1983) Promethean Fire (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Nagel, E. (1961) The Structure of Science (New York: Harcourt, Brace).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plotkin, H.C. and Odling-Smee, F.J. (1979) ‘Learning, Change and Evolution,’ Advances in the Study of Behaviour 10, 1-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plotkin, H.C. and Odling-Smee, F.J. (1981) ‘A Multiple-level Model of Evolution and its Implications for Sociobiology,’ Behavior and Brain Science 4, 225-68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plotkin, H.C., ed. (1982) Learning, Development, and Culture: Essays in Evolutionary Epistemology (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons).Google Scholar
Plotkin, H.C. (1987a) ‘Evolutionary Epistemology as Science,’ Biology and Philosophy 2, 295-313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plotkin, H.C. (1987b) ‘Learning and Evolution,’ in Plotkin, H.C., ed., The Role of Behaviour in Evolution (in preparation).Google Scholar
Plotkin, H.C. (1988) ‘An Evolutionary Epistemological Approach to the Evolution of Intelligence,’ in Jerison, H.J. and Jerison, I. L., eds., Intelligence and Evolutionary Biology (New York: Springer-Verlag).Google Scholar
Pylyshyn, Z.W. (1984) Computation and Cognition: Toward a Foundation for Cognitive Science (Cambridge: MIT Press).Google Scholar
Popper, K.R. (1965) Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge 2nd ed. (New York: Basic Books).Google Scholar
Popper, K.R. (1972) Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Popper, K.R. (1974) ‘Darwinism as a Metaphysical Research Programme,’ in Schlipp, P.A., ed., The Philosophy of Karl Popper (LaSalle: Open Court Publishing), 133-43.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1962) ‘What Theories Are Not,’ in Nagel, E., Suppes, P. and Tarski, A., eds., Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science (Stanford: Stanford University Press), 240-51.Google Scholar
Richerson, P.J. and Boyd, R. (1978) ‘A Dual Inheritance Model of the Human Evolutionary Process: I Basic Postulates and a Simple Model,’ Journal of Social and Biological Structures 1, 127-54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1985) The Structure of Biological Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, M. (1973) The Philosophy of Biology (London: Hutchinson & Co. Ltd).Google Scholar
Ruse, M. (1986) Taking Darwin Seriously (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).Google Scholar
Sneed, J. (1971) The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics (Dordrecht: D. Reidel).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, H. (1857) ‘Progress: Its Law and Cause,’ Westminster Review 5, 1-73.Google Scholar
Stegmuller, W. (1976) The Structure and Dynamics of Theories (New York: Springer- Verlag).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stillings, et al. (1987) Cognitive Science: An Introduction (Cambridge: MIT Press).Google Scholar
Suppe, F. (1972) ‘What's Wrong With the Received View on the Structure of Scientific Theories?’ Philosophy of Science 39, 1-19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppe, F. (1974) ‘Theories and Phenomena,’ in Leinfellner Kohler, W., eds., Developments in the Metand E. hodology of Social Science (Dordrecht: Reidel), 45-91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppe, F. (1977) The Structure of Scientific Theories 2nd ed. (Urbana: The University of Illinois Press).Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1957) Introduction to Logic (Princeton: Van Nostrand).Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1967) ‘What is a Scientific Theory?’ in Morgenbesser, S., ed., Philosophy of Science Today (New York: Basic Books), 55-67.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. (1983) ‘The Structure of Evolutionary Theory: A Semantic Approach,’ Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 14, 215-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, P. (1985) ‘Sociobiological Explanation and the Testability of Sociobiological Theory,’ in Fetzer, J.H., ed., Sociobiology and Epistemology (Dordrecht: D. Reidel), 201-15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, P. (1986) ‘The Interaction of Theories and the Semantic Conception of Evolutionary Theory,’ Philosophica 37, 73-86.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. (1987) ‘A Defence of the Semantic Conception of Evolutionary Theory,’ Biology and Philosophy 2, 26-32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, P. (1989) The Structure of Biological Theories (New York: The State University of New York Press).Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1967) ‘The Evolutionary Development of Natural Science,’ American Scientist 57, 456-71.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1972) Human Understanding (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B.C. (1970) ‘On the Extension of Beth's Semantics of Physical Theories,’ Philosophy of Science 37, 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B.C. (1972a) ‘A Formal Approach to Philosophy of Science,’ in Colodny, R.E. ed., Paradigms and Paradoxes (Pittsburgh: The University of Pittsburgh Press).Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B.C. (1972b) ‘The Labyrinth of Quantum Logics,’ in Cohen, R.S. and Wartofsky, M.W., eds., Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science vol. 7 (New York: Humanities Press).Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B.C. (1980) The Scientific Image (New York: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar