Why the Causal View of Fitness Survives.

We critically examine Denis Walsh's latest attack on the causalist view of fitness. Relying on Judea Pearl's Sure-Thing Principle and geneticist John Gillespie's model for fitness, Walsh has argued that the causal interpretation of fitness results in a reductio. We show that his conclusion only foll...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Philosophy of Science Vol. 78; no. 2; pp. 209 - 225
Autores principales: Otsuka, Jun, Turner, Trin, Allen, Colin, Lloyd, Elisabeth A.
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Cambridge University Press Apr2011
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=60963439&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 60963439
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00318248
        PSC
      jtl: Philosophy of Science
      issn: 00318248
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Apr2011
      vid: 78
      iid: 2
      pid: 15979
      pub: Cambridge University Press
    artinfo:
      ui:
        60963439
        10.1086/659219
      ppf: 209
      ppct: 16
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
            size: 7.1MB
      tig:
        atl: Why the Causal View of Fitness Survives.
      aug:
        au:
          Otsuka, Jun
          Turner, Trin
          Allen, Colin
          Lloyd, Elisabeth A.
        affil: Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Indiana University, Goodbody Hall 130, 1011 East Third Street, Bloomington, IN 47405
      su:
        Walsh, Denis
        Causation (Philosophy)
        Pearl, Judea, 1936-
        Biological fitness
        Probability theory
      sug:
        subj:
          Walsh, Denis
          Causation (Philosophy)
          Pearl, Judea, 1936-
          Biological fitness
          Probability theory
      ab: We critically examine Denis Walsh's latest attack on the causalist view of fitness. Relying on Judea Pearl's Sure-Thing Principle and geneticist John Gillespie's model for fitness, Walsh has argued that the causal interpretation of fitness results in a reductio. We show that his conclusion only follows from misuse of the models, that is, (1) the disregard of the real biological bearing of the population-size parameter in Gillespie's model and (2) the confusion of the distinction between ordinary probability and Pearl's causal probability. Properly understood, the models used by Walsh do not threaten the causalist view of fitness.
      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: 2011
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N