No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Conceptual Evolution: a Response
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 January 2023
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

- Type
- Part VI. Science As Process
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1991
Footnotes
1
This paper was written in part under NSF grant DIR-9012258.
References
Bradie, M. (1986), “Assessing Evolutionary Epistemology”, Biology & Philosophy. 1: 401–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupré, J. (1990), “Scientific Pluralism and the Plurality of the Sciences: Comments on David Hull’s ‘Science as a Process’”, Philosophical Studies. 60:61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ettinger, L., Jablonka, E. and McLaughlin, P. (1990), “On the Adaptations of Organisms and the Fitness of Types”, Philosophy of Science. 57: 490–513.10.1086/289570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griesemer, J.R. (1988), “Genes, Memes and Demes”, Biology & Philosophy. 3: 179–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D.L. (1989), “A Function for Actual Examples in Philosophy of Science”, in What Philosophy of Biology Is: Essays for David Hull., Ruse, M. (ed.). Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 313–24.Google Scholar
Wilkes, K. (1988), Real People: Personal Identity without Thought Experiments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, G.C. (1966), Adaptation and Natural Selection, New York: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar