Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:53:23.593Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Natural Selection and Contrastive Explanation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Abstract

This article defends the Negative View of natural selection explanation, according to which natural selection cannot explain of any given individual why it has the traits it does. Over the years, this view has been criticized on empirical, metaphysical, and explanatory grounds. I review the debate and offer additional reasons for rejecting the empirical and metaphysical objections. The explanatory objection, which holds that the Negative View is rooted in a flawed account of contrastive explanation, initially seems plausible. However, I argue that a closer consideration of the desiderata of contrastive explanation shows that this objection fails as well.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

*

To contact the author, please write to: Department of Science Education, Section for History and Philosophy of Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; e-mail: [email protected].

I would like to thank the audience of the Theoretical Philosophy Colloquium at the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies of Utrecht University for helpful feedback on an early version of this work. This article benefited greatly from the advice of three reviewers and from the incisive and constructive comments of Jonathan Birch.

References

Birch, Jonathan. 2012. “The Negative View of Natural Selection.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43 (2): 569–73..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cummins, Robert. 1975. “Functional Analysis.” Journal of Philosophy 73 (20): 741–65..Google Scholar
Forber, Patrick. 2005. “On the Explanatory Roles of Natural Selection.” Biology and Philosophy 20:329–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helgeson, Casey. 2013. “What Selection Can and Cannot Explain: A Reply to Nanay’s Critique of Sober.” Philosophy of Science 80 (1): 155–59..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helgeson, Casey. 2015. “There Is No Asymmetry of Identity Assumptions in the Debate over Selection and Individuals.” Philosophy of Science 82 (1): 2131..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitchcock, Christopher R. 2013. “Contrastive Explanation.” In Contrastivism in Philosophy, ed. Blaauw, Martijn, 1134. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul. 1980. Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewens, Tim. 2001. “Sex and Selection: A Reply to Matthen.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (3): 589–98..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipton, Peter. 2004. Inference to the Best Explanation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Matthen, Mohan. 1999. “Discussion: Evolution, Wisconsin Style; Selection and the Explanation of Individual Traits.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (1): 143–50..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthen, Mohan. 2003. “Is Sex Really Necessary? And Other Questions for Lewens.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54 (2): 297308..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLoone, Brian. 2013. “Selection Explanations of Token Traits.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (3): 342–46..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nanay, Bence. 2005. “Can Cumulative Selection Explain Adaptation?Philosophy of Science 72 (5): 1099–112..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nanay, Bence. 2010. “Natural Selection and the Limitations of Environmental Resources.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 41 (4): 418–19..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neander, Karen. 1988. “What Does Natural Selection Explain? Correction to Sober.” Philosophy of Science 55 (3): 422–26..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neander, Karen. 1995a. “Explaining Complex Adaptations: A Reply to Sober’s ‘Reply to Neander.’British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (4): 583–87..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neander, Karen. 1995b. “Pruning the Tree of Life.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (1): 5980..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Pust, Joel. 2001. “Natural Selection Explanation and Origin Essentialism.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 31 (2): 201–20..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pust, Joel. 2004. “Natural Selection and the Traits of Individual Organisms.” Biology and Philosophy 19 (5): 765–79..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Razeto-Barry, Pablo, and Frick, Ramiro. 2011. “Probabilistic Causation and the Explanatory Role of Natural Selection.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (3): 344–55..Google ScholarPubMed
Sartorelli, Joseph. 2015. “Biological Process, Essential Origin, and Identity.” Philosophical Studies 173 (6): 1603–19..Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott. 1984. The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott. 1986. “Explanatory Presupposition.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 64 (2): 143–49..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott. 1995. “Natural Selection and Distributive Explanation: A Reply to Neander.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (3): 384–97..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stegmann, Ulrich. 2010a. “Reply to Bence Nanay’s ‘Natural Selection and the Limited Nature of Environmental Resources.’Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 41:420–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stegmann, Ulrich. 2010b. “What Can Natural Selection Explain?Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 41:6166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strevens, Michael. 2008. Depth: An Account of Scientific Explanation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Walsh, Denis M. 1998. “The Scope of Selection: Sober and Neander on What Natural Selection Explains.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76 (2): 250–64..CrossRefGoogle Scholar