Sarkar on Frank.
In a recent paper, Sahotra Sarkar compares the Standard Dynamical interpretation of natural selection with the Information-Theoretic interpretation from Steven A. Frank. I address Sarkar's three arguments against Frank's interpretation. I show that Sarkar's major argument that a key component of Fra...
| Publicado en: | Philosophy of Science Vol. 82; no. 1; pp. 122 - 129 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Cambridge University Press
Jan2015
|
| 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=99943662&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 99943662 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00318248 PSC jtl: Philosophy of Science issn: 00318248 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Jan2015 vid: 82 iid: 1 pid: 15979 pub: Cambridge University Press artinfo: ui: 99943662 10.1086/679035 ppf: 122 ppct: 7 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 219KB tig: atl: Sarkar on Frank. aug: au: Crawford, David Robert su: Natural selection Sarkar, Sahotra Frank, Steven A. Mathematical errors Philosophy of science sug: subj: Natural selection Sarkar, Sahotra Frank, Steven A. Mathematical errors Philosophy of science ab: In a recent paper, Sahotra Sarkar compares the Standard Dynamical interpretation of natural selection with the Information-Theoretic interpretation from Steven A. Frank. I address Sarkar's three arguments against Frank's interpretation. I show that Sarkar's major argument that a key component of Frank's account "does not have any natural biological interpretation" is premised on a contradiction stemming from a mathematical error. Consequently, Sarkar's major argument is unsound. I also address Sarkar's claim that a central equation in Frank's interpretation is dynamically insufficient and his claim that Frank's interpretation uses nonintuitive parameters to simply rewrite familiar results. 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: 2015 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|