Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T15:00:49.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pluralism, Entwinement, and the Levels of Selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Robert A. Wilson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper distinguishes and critiques several forms of pluralism about the levels of selection, and introduces a novel way of thinking about the biological properties and processes typically conceptualized in terms of distinct levels. In particular, “levels” should be thought of as being entwined or fused. Since the pluralism discussed is held by divergent theorists, the argument has implications for many positions in the debate over the units of selection. And since the key points on which the paper turns apply beyond this specific issue, the paper may prove of general interest in thinking about the metaphysics of science

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 70 , Issue 3 , July 2003 , pp. 531 - 552
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

‡

An early and brief version of this paper was presented at the Western Canadian Philosophical Association meeting in Edmonton in October 2000, and at the Canadian Philosophical Association meeting in Quebec City in May 2001. I thank my respective commentators, Jim Brown and David Castle, and audiences for their feedback on these occasions. Some of the ideas in the final sections of the paper were informally bruited at a meeting of the Science and Humanities Circle at the University of Alberta in January 2002, and I thank participants there, especially Alex Rueger, for some feedback. Special thanks also to Michael Wade for some valuable written comments on a draft, and for drawing my attention to some of the recent biological literature; and to two referees for Philosophy of Science, one of whom drew my attention to the recent work of Kerr and Godfrey-Smith, for their particularly astute comments.

References

Agrawal, Aneil F., Brodie, Edmund D. III, and Wade, Michael J. (2001), “On Indirect Genetic Effects in Structured Populations”, On Indirect Genetic Effects in Structured Populations 158:308–323.Google ScholarPubMed
Bernardes, A.T., and Zorzenon Dos Santos, R.M. (1997), “Immune Network at the Edge of Chaos”, Immune Network at the Edge of Chaos 186:173–187.Google Scholar
Black, Max (1962), Models and Metaphors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourke, Andrew F.G., and Franks, Nigel R. (1995), Social Evolution in Ants. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard (1993), “Metaphor and Theory Change: What is ‘Metaphor’ a Metaphor For?”, in Ortony, Andrew (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 481–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, D.M. (1982), “Group Selection Versus Individual Selection: An Experimental Analysis”, Group Selection Versus Individual Selection: An Experimental Analysis 36:271–282.Google ScholarPubMed
Crozier, Ross H., and Pamilo, Pekka (1996), Evolution of Social Insect Colonies. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Damuth, John, and Heisler, I. Lorraine (1988), “Alternative Formulations of Multilevel Selection”, Alternative Formulations of Multilevel Selection 3:407–430.Google Scholar
Dawkins, Richard (1982), The Extended Phenotype. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, Richard (1989), The Selfish Gene. 2d ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dresden, Max (1998), “The Klopsteg Memorial Lecture: Fundamentality and Numerical Scales—Diversity and the Structure of Physics”, The Klopsteg Memorial Lecture: Fundamentality and Numerical Scales—Diversity and the Structure of Physics 66:468–482.Google Scholar
Dugatkin, Lee Alan (2002), “Will Peace Follow?”, Will Peace Follow? 17:519–522.Google Scholar
Dugatkin, Lee Alan, and Reeve, Hudson K. (1994), “Behavioral Ecology and Levels of Selection: Dissolving the Group Selection Controversy”, in Slater, Peter J.B. et al. (eds.), Advances in the Study of Behavior, Vol. 23. New York: Academic Press, 101–133.Google Scholar
Frank, Steve A. (1998), Foundations of Social Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, Peter, and Kerr, Benjamin (2002), “Group Fitness and Multi-Level Selection: Replies to Commentaries”, Group Fitness and Multi-Level Selection: Replies to Commentaries 17:539–549.Google Scholar
Goodnight, Charles (1985), “The Influence of Environmental Variation on Group and Individual Selection in a Cress”, The Influence of Environmental Variation on Group and Individual Selection in a Cress 39:545–558.Google Scholar
Goodnight, Charles, and Stevens, Lori (1997), “Experimental Studies of Group Selection: What Do They Tell Us About Group Selection in Nature?”, Experimental Studies of Group Selection: What Do They Tell Us About Group Selection in Nature? 150: S59–S79.Google ScholarPubMed
Grafen, Alan (1984), “Natural Selection, Kin Selection, and Group Selection”, in Krebs, J. and Davies, N. (eds.), Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. London: Blackwell, 63–84.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul (2002), Review of Sober and Wilson 1998, Mind 111:178–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heisler, I. Lorraine, and Damuth, John (1987), “A Method for Analyzing Selection in Hierarchically Structured Populations”, A Method for Analyzing Selection in Hierarchically Structured Populations 130:582–602.Google Scholar
Hesse, Mary (1966), Models and Analogies in Science. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Kerr, Benjamin, and Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2002a), “Individualist and Multi-Level Perspectives on Selection in Structured Populations”, Individualist and Multi-Level Perspectives on Selection in Structured Populations 17:477–517.Google Scholar
Kerr, Benjamin, and Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2002b), “On Price’s Equation and Average Fitness”, On Price’s Equation and Average Fitness 17:551–565.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (2002), “Evolution Theory and the Social Uses of Biology”, paper read at eighteenth biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, November 2002, Milwaukee, WI.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Elisabeth A. (2001), “Units and Levels of Selection: An Anatomy of the Units of Selection Debates”, in Singh, Rama S., Krimbas, Costas B., Paul, Diane B., and Beatty, John (eds.), Thinking About Evolution: Historical, Philosophical, and Political Perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press, 267–291.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, John (1987), “How to Model Evolution”, in Dupré, John (ed.), The Latest on the Best. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 119–131.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, John (2002), “Commentary on Kerr and Godfrey-Smith”, Commentary on Kerr and Godfrey-Smith 17:523–527.Google Scholar
Michod, Richard (1999), Darwinian Dynamics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Reeve, Hudson K. (2000), “Multi-Level Selection and Human Cooperation”, Multi-Level Selection and Human Cooperation 21:65–72.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott (1984), The Nature of Selection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott and Wilson, David Sloan (1998), Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott and Wilson, David Sloan (2002), “Perspectives and Parameterizations: Commentary on Benjamin Kerr and Peter Godfrey-Smith’s ‘Individualist and Multi-Level Perspectives on Selection in Structured Populations’”, Perspectives and Parameterizations: Commentary on Benjamin Kerr and Peter Godfrey-Smith’s ‘Individualist and Multi-Level Perspectives on Selection in Structured Populations’ 17:529–537.Google Scholar
Sterelny, Kim (1996), “The Return of the Group”, The Return of the Group 63:562–84.Google Scholar
Sterelny, Kim, and Kitcher, Philip (1988), “The Return of the Gene”, The Return of the Gene 85:339–361.Google Scholar
Wade, Michael J. (1977), “An Experimental Study of Group Selection”, An Experimental Study of Group Selection 31:134–153.Google ScholarPubMed
Wade, Michael J. (1978), “A Critical Review of the Models of Group Selection”, A Critical Review of the Models of Group Selection 53:101–114.Google Scholar
Wade, Michael J. (1980), “An Experimental Study of Kin Selection”, An Experimental Study of Kin Selection 34:844–855.Google ScholarPubMed
Wade, Michael J. (1982), “Group Selection: Migration and the Differentiation of Small Populations”, Group Selection: Migration and the Differentiation of Small Populations 36:944–961.Google ScholarPubMed
Williams, George C. (1966), Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, David Sloan, and Sober, Elliott (1994), “Reintroducing Group Selection to the Human Behavioral Sciences”, Reintroducing Group Selection to the Human Behavioral Sciences 17:585–654.Google Scholar
Wilson, Robert A. (1996), “Promiscuous Realism”, Promiscuous Realism 47:303–316.Google Scholar
Wilson, Robert A. (1999), “Realism, Essence, and Kind: Resuscitating Species Essentialism?”, in Wilson, Robert A. (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 187–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Jason B., Wade, Michael J., and Brodie, Edmund D. III (2003), “The Genotype-Environment Interaction and Evolution when the Environment Contains Genes”, in DeWitt, Thomas J. and Scheiner, Samuel. M. (eds.), Phenotypic Plasticity: Functional and Conceptual Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar