Sometimes evolutionary biologists explain the prevalence of a social trait by hypothesizing
that there was group selection for the trait. But philosophers of biology (and biologists
themselves) disagree about how to define group selection: each candidate definition
has some counter-intuitive consequences, and each candidate definition strikes some
of its opponents as intuitively "ad hoc". To make progress on this issue, Clarke argues,
we need to move beyond this trading of intuitions. Instead, we should ask: what theoretical
role are group selection hypotheses meant to play? Clarke suggests that the role of
group selection hypotheses is to offer causal explanations that "avoid overlapping"
with individual selection hypotheses---in a sense that he will make precise. Clarke
then explores some consequences of this suggestion. Firstly, there are at least two
distinct definitions of group selection that are theoretically motivated. Secondly,
the definition that is most appropriate, to apply to a given biological scenario,
will depend upon one's explanatory interests.
People in SocSci
Faculty & Lecturers
- Outreach & Diversity
- Global Connect
- Ambassador's Council
- Diversity, Inclusion & Racial Healing High School Ambassador Program
- Deconstructing Diversity Initiative
- Olive Tree Initiative
Alumni & Community Organizations
Equity, Diversity & Inclusion Resources
- Join us!
We’re seeking your support as we push the limits in neuroscience, population science and emerging conflict research, because solutions to some of society’s greatest challenges lie in our ability to break the mold, to be boundaryless. Learn how you can support and join us in our pursuit.
- Join us!
- News & Events
Be in the know