Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T20:19:04.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimal-Design Models and the Strategy of Model Building in Evolutionary Biology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

John Beatty
John Beatty*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The prevalence of optimality models in the literature of evolutionary biology is testimony to their popularity and importance. Evolutionary biologist R. C. Lewontin, whose criticisms of optimality models are considered here, reflects that “optimality arguments have become extremely popular in the last fifteen years, and at present represent the dominant mode of thought.”

Although optimality models have received little attention in the philosophical literature, these models are very interesting from a philosophical point of view. As will be argued, optimality models are central to evolutionary thought, yet they are not readily accomodated by the traditional view of scientific theories. According to the traditional view, we would expect optimality models to employ general, empirical laws of nature, but they do not. Fortunately, the semantic view of scientific theories, a recent alternative to the traditional view, more readily accomodates optimality models. As we would expect on the semantic view, optimality models can be construed as specifications of ideal systems. These specifications may be used to describe empirical systems—that is, the specifications may have empirical instances. But the specifications are not empirical claims, much less general, empirical laws.

Although philosophers have yet to discuss the general features and uses of optimality models, these topics have stimulated much recent discussion among evolutionary biologists. Their discussions raise a number of precautions concerning the proper use of optimality models. Moreover, many of their caveats can be interpreted as general reminders that 1) optimality models specify ideal systems whose empirical instantiations may be quite restricted, and that 2) optimality models should not be construed as general, empirical laws. As G. F. Oster and E. O. Wilson caution, “the prudent course is to regard optimality models as provisional guides to further empirical research and not necessarily as the key to deeper laws of nature.” It seems, then, that the semantic view of theories is more sensitive to the nature and limitations of optimality models than is the more traditional view of theories.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , December 1980 , pp. 532 - 561
Copyright
Copyright © 1980 by 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

†

I am very grateful to Roger Buck, Fred Churchill, Ron Giere, David Hull, Ernst Mayr, Craig Nelson, Mark Pastin, and especially Michael Ruse for constructive criticisms of earlier drafts. An abstract of this paper was read very quickly, by a very nervous speaker, at the Sixth International Congress for Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science.

References

Beatty, J. (Forthcoming), “What's Wrong with the Received View of Evolutionary Theory?” PSA 1980, Proceedings of the 1980 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume 2. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Brandon, R. N. (1978), “Adaptation and Evolutionary Theory,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 9: 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cody, M. (1966), “A General Theory of Clutch Size,” Evolution, 20: 174–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coffa, J. A. (1973), Foundations of Inductive Explanation (doctoral dissertation). Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms.Google Scholar
Crow, J. and Kimura, M., (1970), An Introduction to Population Genetics Theory. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, T. (1970), Genetics of the Evolutionary Process. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Gadgil, M. and Bossert, W., (1970), “Life Historical Consequences of Natural Selection,” American Naturalist, 104: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R. (1979), Understanding Scientific Reasoning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1976), “Darwin's Untimely Burial,” Natural History, 85: 24–32.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. and Lewontin, R. C., (1979), “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B205: 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1952), “Typological Methods in the Natural and Social Sciences,” reprinted in Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: Free Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1965), “Aspects of Scientific Explanation,” in Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1966), Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Holling, C. S. (1964), “The Analysis of Complex Population Processes,” Canadian Entomologist, 96: 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1974), Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Leigh, E. (1971), Adaptation and Diversity. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper, and Company.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1969), “The Meaning of Stability,” in Diversity and Stability in Ecological Systems. Upton, New York: Brookhaven National Laboratories.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1971), “The Effect of Genetic Linkage on the Mean Fitness of a Population,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 68: 984–986.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewontin, R. C. (1977), “Adaptation,” The Encyclopedia Einaudi. Torino: Giulio Einaudi Edition.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1978a), “Fitness, Survival, and Optimality,” Analysis of Ecological Systems (D. H. Horn, R. Mitchell, G. R. Stairs, eds.). Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1978b), “Adaptation,” Scientific American, 239: 212–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. C. (1955), “The Stability of an Equilibrium and the Average Fitness of a Population,” American Naturalist, 89: 281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacArthur, R. H. (1965), “Ecological Consequences of Natural Selection,” in Theoretical and Mathematical Biology (T. H. Waterman and H. J. Morowitz, eds.). New York: Blaisdell Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1978), “Optimization Theory in Evolution,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 9: 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1939), “The Sex Ratio in Wild Birds,” American Naturalist, 73: 156–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1961), “Cause and Effect in Biology,” Science 134: 1501–1506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mettler, L. and Gregg, T., (1969), Population Genetics and Evolution. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Mills, S. and Beatty, J., (1979), “The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness,” Philosophy of Science, 46:263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moulines, C.-U. (1975), “A Logical Reconstruction of Simple Equilibrium Thermodynamics,” Erkenntnis 9: 101–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munson, R. (1971), “Biological Adaptation,” Philosophy of Science 38: 200–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munson, R. (1975), “Is Biology a Provincial Science?” Philosophy of Science, 42: 428–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oster, G. F. and Wilson, E. O., (1978), Caste and Ecology in the Social Insects. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Popper, K. (1934), Logik der Forschung. Translated as The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books. 1959.Google Scholar
Pratt, V. (1972), “Numerical Taxonomy—A Critique,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 36: 581–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruse, M. (1973), The Philosophy of Biology. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Sahlins, M. (1976), The Use and Abuse of Biology. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scriven, M. (1959) “Explanation and Prediction in Evolutionary Theory,” Science, 130: 477–482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sneed, J. D. (1971), The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stearns, S. C. (1977), “The Evolution of Life History Traits,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 8: 145–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stegmüller, W. (1976), The Structure and Dynamics of Theories. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppe, F. (1972), “The Search for Philosophic Understanding of Scientific Theories,” in The Structure of Scientific Theories (F. Suppe, ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1957), Introduction to Logic. New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1967a), “What is a Scientific Theory?” in Philosophy of Science Today (S. Morgenbesser, ed.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1967b), Set-Theoretical Structures in Science. Mimeographed, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. and Willard, D. E., (1973), “Natural Selection of Parental Ability to Vary the Sex Ratio of Offspring,” Science, 179: 90–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Fraassen, B. (1970), “On the Extension of Beth's Semantics of Physical Theories,” Philosophy of Science, 37: 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1972), “A Formal Approach to the Philosophy of Science,” in Paradigms and Paradoxes (R. Colodny, ed.). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Waddington, C. H. (1968), “The Basic Ideas of Biology,” in Towards a Theoretical Biology, Volume I. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Wessels, L. (1976), “Laws and Meaning Postulates (in van Fraassen's View of Theories),” Philosophy of Science Association, Proceedings of the 1974 Meetings. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1966), Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, M. B. (1970), “Deducing the Consequences of Evolution: A Mathematical Model,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 29: 343–385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, M. B. (1973), “Falsifiable Predictions of Evolutionary Theory,” Philosophy of Science 40: 518–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. B. (1974), “The Logical Status of Natural Selection and Other Evolutionary Controversies,” in The Methodological Unity of Science (M. Bunge, ed.). Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.Google Scholar
Williams, M. B. (1976), “The Logical Structure of Functional Explanations in Biology,” PSA 1976, Proceedings of the 1976 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume 1. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Williams, M. B. (1977), “Bridge Principles and Evolutionary Theory,” Prepared for presentation at the Symposium on Philosophy of Biology sponsored by the IX Interamerican Congress of Philosophy, Caracas, Venezuela. To be published in Revista de Sociedad Filosophia Venezolana.Google Scholar
Williams, M. B. (Forthcoming), “Is Biology a Different Type of Science?” in Pragmatism and Purpose: Essays Presented to Thomas A. Goudge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. O. (1975), Sociobiology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. (1972), “Teleology and the Logical Status of Function Statements,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 3: 1–80.Google Scholar
Wright, L. (1976), Teleological Explanation. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (1932), “The Roles of Mutation, Inbreeding, Crossbreeding, and Selection in Evolution,” Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Genetics, 1: 356–366.Google Scholar