Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T21:27:42.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fitness Made Physical: The Supervenience of Biological Concepts Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Marcel Weber
Marcel Weber*
Affiliation:
Fachgruppe Philosophie, Universität Konstanz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The supervenience and multiple realizability of biological properties have been invoked to support a disunified picture of the biological sciences. I argue that supervenience does not capture the relation between fitness and an organism's physical properties. The actual relation is one of causal dependence and is, therefore, amenable to causal explanation. A case from optimality theory is presented and interpreted as a microreductive explanation of fitness difference. Such micro-reductions can have considerable scope. Implications are discussed for reductive physicalism in evolutionary biology and for the unity of science.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 63 , Issue 3 , September 1996 , pp. 411 - 431
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I am especially grateful to Richard Burian, Paul Hoyningen-Huene and two anonymous referees for many helpful suggestions. I also wish to thank Hanne Andersen, Reinhart Brüning, Peter McLaughlin, Bernhard Schmid and Paul Schmid-Hempel for critically reading various drafts. This work is part of a Ph.D. thesis submitted to the University of Konstanz and was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, grant #5001–35228.

‡

Send reprint requests to the author, Minnesota Center for the Philosophy of Science, University of Minnesota, 309 Ford Hall, Minneapolis, MN 55455.

References

Anderson, P. (1972), “More is Different”, Science 177: 393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beatty, J. (1980), “Optimal-Design Models and the Strategy of Model Building in Evolutionary Biology”, Philosophy of Science 47: 632–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beatty, J. (1995), “The Evolutionary Contingency Thesis”, in Wolters, G., Lennox, J. G., and McLaughlin, P. (eds.), Concepts, Theories, and Rationality in the Biological Sciences. The Second Pittsburgh-Konstanz Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science. Konstanz/Pittsburgh: Universitätsverlag Konstanz/University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 45–81.Google Scholar
Beckermann, A. (1992), “Supervenience, Emergence, and Reduction”, in Beckermann, A., Flohr, H., and Kim, J. (eds.), Emergence or Reduction? Essays on the Prospects of Non-reductive Physicalism. Berlin: deGruyter, pp. 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandon, R. (1978), “Adaptation and Evolutionary Theory”, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 9: 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandon, R. (1992), “Environment”, in Keller, E. Fox and Lloyd, E. A. (eds.), Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge MA.: Harvard University Press, pp. 81–86.Google Scholar
Broad, C. D. (1925), The Mind and its Place in Nature. London: Routledge & Kegan.Google Scholar
Burian, R. M. (1983), “Adaptation”, in Grene, M. (ed.), Dimensions of Darwinism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 187–314.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, R. (1983), The Nature of Psychological Explanation. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Endler, J. A. (1986), Natural Selection in the Wild. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. (1962), “Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism”, in Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. III. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 28–97.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1974), “Special Sciences or the Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis”, Synthese 28: 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1989), Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. London: Hutchinson Radius.Google Scholar
Grimes, T. R. (1988), “The Myth of Supervenience”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 69: 152–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, M. J. S. (1987), “Natural Selection as a Causal, Empirical and Probabilistic Theory”, in Krüger, L., Gigerenzer, G., and Morgan, M. S. (eds.), The Probabilistic Revolution II. Ideas in the Sciences. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, pp. 233–270.Google Scholar
Hooker, C. A. (1981), “Towards a General Theory of Reduction. Part III: Cross-Categorial Reduction”, Dialogue 20: 496–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, P. (1995), “Commentary [to Kim 1995]”, paper read at the Third Pittsburgh-Konstanz Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science (proceedings to be published by Universitätsverlag Konstanz and University of Pittsburgh Press).Google Scholar
Kim, J. (1978), “Supervenience and Nomological Incommensurables”, American Philosophical Quarterly 15: 149–156.Google Scholar
Kim, J. (1984), “Concepts of Supervenience”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 45: 153–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. 1989), “The Myth of Nonreductive Materialism”, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 63: 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. (1990), “Supervenience as a Philosophical Concept”, Metaphilosophy 21: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. (1995), “Emergence, Supervenience and Realization in the Philosophy of Mind”, paper read at the Third Pittsburgh-Konstanz Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science (proceedings to be published by Universitätsverlag Konstanz and University of Pittsburgh Press).Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1978), “Optimization Theory in Evolution”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 9: 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1982), The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mills, S., and Beatty, J. (1979), “The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness”, Philosophy of Science 46: 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, E. (1961), The Structure of Science. Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Oppenheim, P., and Putnam, H. (1958), “The Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis”, in Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. II. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 3–36.Google Scholar
Parker, G. A., and Smith, J. Maynard (1990), “Optimality Theory in Evolutionary Biology”, Nature 348: 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pietroski, P., and Rey, G. (1995), “When Other Things Aren't Equal: Saving Ceteris Paribus Laws from Vacuity”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46: 81–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1967), “The Nature of Mental States”, in Mind, Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1975, pp. 139–152.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1978), “The Supervenience of Biological Concepts”, Philosophy of Science 45: 368–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1983), “Fitness”, The Journal of Philosophy 80: 457–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1985), The Structure of Biological Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1994), Instrumental Biology or the Disunity of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schaffner, K. F. (1993), Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schmid-Hempel, P., Kacelnik, A., and Houston, A. I. (1985), “Honeybees Maximise Efficiency by Not Filling Their Crop”, Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 17: 61–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. (1984), The Nature of Selection. Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1993), Philosophy of Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stearns, S. C. (1992), The Evolution of Life Histories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stearns, S. C., and Schmid-Hempel, P. (1987), “Evolutionary Insights Should Not Be Wasted”, OIKOS 49: 118–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, S. (1992), Dreams of a Final Theory. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1985), “A Defense of Reductionism in Evolutionary Biology”, in Dawkins, R. and Ridley, M. (eds.), Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
Wolf, T., and Schmid-Hempel, P. (1989), “Extra Loads and Foraging Life Span in Honeybee Workers”, Journal of Animal Ecology 58: 943–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar