Abstract

Kevin Laland and colleagues have put forward a number of arguments motivating an extended evolutionary synthesis. Here I examine Laland et al.'s central concept of reciprocal causation. Reciprocal causation features in many arguments supporting an expanded evolutionary framework, yet few of these arguments are clearly delineated. Here I clarify the concept and make explicit three arguments in which it features. I identify where skeptics can—and are—pushing back against these arguments, and highlight what I see as the empirical, explanatory, and methodological issues at stake.

Highlights

  • This line of criticism has been developed in new ways by Kevin Laland and colleagues

  • Their arguments have attracted significant attention, especially those arguing for a new evolutionary framework, what they call an extended evolutionary synthesis (EES)

  • Reciprocal causation is central to this story, as it introduces a way of tweaking the parameters of evolutionary change that represent constraints on the mappings between networks and behavior

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Over the last 40 years researchers of many stripes have critiqued the structure of evolutionary theory on causal grounds. This line of criticism has been developed in new ways by Kevin Laland and colleagues. Over the last 40 years researchers of many stripes have critiqued the structure of evolutionary theory on causal grounds.1 This line of criticism has been developed in new ways by Kevin Laland and colleagues. Following Kitcher (1993), I use consensus practice to refer to the persisting and shared practices within a scientific domain that enact typical approaches to carrying out research, determine the salience and importance of research questions, and set up the standards for evaluating candidate explanations. Such shared practices are inculcated in researchers through their education, training, and hands-on experience with evolutionary reasoning. They argue that “core assumptions” (Laland et al 2015), “central tenets” (Pigliucci and Müller 2010), or “core logic”

For instance
Buskell
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.