Natural Selection as a Mechanism.

Skipper and Millstein (2005) argued that existing conceptions of mechanisms failed to "get at" natural selection but left open the possibility that a refined conception of mechanisms could resolve the problems that they identified. I respond to Skipper and Millstein, and argue that while many of the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Philosophy of Science Vol. 75; no. 3; pp. 306 - 323
Autor principal: Barros, D. Benjamin
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Cambridge University Press Jul2008
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=35388450&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 35388450
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00318248
        PSC
      jtl: Philosophy of Science
      issn: 00318248
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jul2008
      vid: 75
      iid: 3
      pid: 15979
      pub: Cambridge University Press
    artinfo:
      ui:
        35388450
        10.1086/593075
      ppf: 306
      ppct: 17
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
            size: 214KB
      tig:
        atl: Natural Selection as a Mechanism.
      aug:
        au: Barros, D. Benjamin
        affil: Department of Philosophy, Skinner Building, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
      su:
        Natural selection
        Mechanism (Philosophy)
        Probability theory
        Biological adaptation
        Logical prediction
      sug:
        subj:
          Natural selection
          Mechanism (Philosophy)
          Probability theory
          Biological adaptation
          Logical prediction
      ab: Skipper and Millstein (2005) argued that existing conceptions of mechanisms failed to "get at" natural selection but left open the possibility that a refined conception of mechanisms could resolve the problems that they identified. I respond to Skipper and Millstein, and argue that while many of their points have merit, their objections can be overcome and that natural selection can be characterized as a mechanism. Inmaking this argument, I discuss the role of regularity in mechanisms, and develop an account of stochastic (i.e., probabilistic) mechanisms. Explaining the phenomenon of adaptation through the mechanism of natural selection illustrates the power and flexibility of using mechanistic strategies to explain natural phenomena.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Copyright of Philosophy of Science is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
      item: Philosophy of Science
      holder: Cambridge University Press
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2008
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N