-
87The semantic approach to evolutionary theoryBiology and Philosophy 6 (1): 59-80. 1991.Paul Thompson, John Beatty, and Elisabeth Lloyd argue that attempts to resolve certain conceptual issues within evolutionary biology have failed because of a general adherence to the received view of scientific theories. They maintain that such issues can be clarified and resolved when one adopts a semantic approach to theories. In this paper, I argue that such conceptual issues are just as problematic on a semantic approach. Such issues arise from the complexity involved in providing formal acc…Read more
-
104Species, taxonomy, and systematicsIn Michael Ruse (ed.), Philosophy of biology, Prometheus Books. pp. 403--428. 1998.
-
41Pluralism, Normative Naturalism, and Biological TaxonomyPSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994 382-389. 1994.Several authors have argued for taxonomic pluralism in biology -the position that there is a plurality of equally legitimate classifications of the organic world. Others have objected that such pluralism boils down to a position of anything goes. This paper offers a response to the anything goes objection by showing how one can be a discerning pluralist. In particular, methodological standards for choosing taxonomic projects are derived using Laudan's normative naturalism. This paper also sheds …Read more
-
41Individuality and Macroevolutionary TheoryPSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988. 1988.A number of authors have argued that the thesis that species are individuals has important implications for macroevolutionary theory. More specifically, some authors claim that the thesis lends support to the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium and indicates the existence of species selection. In this paper, I argue that the alleged individuality of species is neither necessary nor sufficient for the truth of that theory or for the existence of species selection. I also argue, contrary to the claim…Read more
-
425What's Wrong with the New Biological EssentialismPhilosophy of Science 77 (5): 674-685. 2010.The received view in the philosophy of biology is that biological taxa (species and higher taxa) do not have essences. Recently, some philosophers (Boyd, Devitt, Griffiths, LaPorte, Okasha, and Wilson) have suggested new forms of biological essentialism. They argue that according to these new forms of essentialism, biological taxa do have essences. This article critically evaluates the new biological essentialism. This article’s thesis is that the costs of adopting the new biological essentialism…Read more
-
13The metaphysics of evolution: David Hull, , viii + 331 pp., ISBN 0-7914-0211-8 Hardback $73.50, Paperback $24.95. Michael Ruse , What the Philosophy of Biology Is: Essays Dedicated to David Hull , ix + 337 pp., ISBN 90-247-3778-8 Hardback Dfl 180.00/$99.00/£59.00 (review)Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 22 (3): 525-532. 1991.
-
166Species, higher taxa, and the units of evolutionPhilosophy of Science 58 (1): 84-101. 1991.A number of authors argue that while species are evolutionary units, individuals and real entities, higher taxa are not. I argue that drawing the divide between species and higher taxa along such lines has not been successful. Common conceptions of evolutionary units either include or exclude both types of taxa. Most species, like all higher taxa, are not individuals, but historical entities. Furthermore, higher taxa are neither more nor less real than species. None of this implies that there is…Read more
-
69Darwin offered an intriguing answer to the species problem. He doubted the existence of the species category as a real category in nature, but he did not doubt the existence of those taxa called ‘‘species’’. And despite his scepticism of the species category, Darwin continued using the word ‘‘species’’. Many have said that Darwin did not understand the nature of species. Yet his answer to the species problem is both theoretically sound and practical. On the theoretical side, DarwinÕs answer is co…Read more
-
3Elliott Sober, Reconstructing the Past: Parsimony, Evolution, and Inference Reviewed byPhilosophy in Review 13 (3): 122-123. 1993.
-
The Units of Evolution: Essays on the Nature of SpeciesHistory and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 16 (2): 355. 1994.
-
229Axiomatics and individuality: A reply to Williams' "species are individuals"Philosophy of Science 55 (3): 427-434. 1988.In her "Species Are Individuals" (1985), Mary Williams offers informal arguments and a sketched proof which allegedly show that species are individuals with respect to evolutionary theory. In this paper, I suggest that her informal arguments are insufficient for showing that clans are not sets and that species are individuals. I also argue that her sketched proof depends on three questionable assumptions
-
110Linnaean ranks: Vestiges of a bygone eraProceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2002 (3). 2002.We tend to think that there are different types of biological taxa: some taxa are species, others are genera, while others are families. Linnaeus gave us his ranks in 1731. Biological theory has changed since Linnaeus’s time. Nevertheless, the vast majority of biologists still assign Linnaean ranks to taxa, even though that practice is at odds with evolutionary theory and even though it causes a number of practical problems. The Linnaean ranks should be abandoned and alternative methods for disp…Read more
-
51Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life Daniel Dennett New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995, 586 pp., $40.00 (review)Dialogue 36 (3): 639-. 1997.
-
35The Poverty of the Linnaean Hierarchy: A Philosophical Study of Biological TaxonomyCambridge University Press. 2000.The question of whether biologists should continue to use the Linnaean hierarchy has been a hotly debated issue. Invented before the introduction of evolutionary theory, Linnaeus's system of classifying organisms is based on outdated theoretical assumptions, and is thought to be unable to provide accurate biological classifications. Marc Ereshefsky argues that biologists should abandon the Linnaean system and adopt an alternative that is more in line with evolutionary theory. He traces the evolu…Read more
-
435Species pluralism and anti-realismPhilosophy of Science 65 (1): 103-120. 1998.Species pluralism gives us reason to doubt the existence of the species category. The problem is not that species concepts are chosen according to our interests or that pluralism and the desire for hierarchical classifications are incompatible. The problem is that the various taxa we call 'species' lack a common unifying feature
-
67Names, numbers and indentations: A guide to post-linnaean taxonomyStudies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 32 (2): 361-383. 2001.The vast majority of biological taxonomists use the Linnaean system when constructing classifications. Taxa are assigned Linnaean ranks and taxon names are devised according to the Linnaean rules of nomenclature. Unfortunately, the Linnaean system has become theoretically outdated. Moreover, its continued use causes a number of practical problems. This paper begins by sketching the ontological and practical problems facing the Linnaean system. Those problems are sufficiently pressing that altern…Read more
-
108
-
1The Units of Evolution: Essays on the Nature of SpeciesJournal of the History of Biology 25 (3): 500-501. 1992.
-
144Bridging the gap between human kinds and biological kindsPhilosophy of Science 71 (5): 912-921. 2004.Many writers claim that human kinds are significantly different from biological and natural kinds. Some suggest that humans kinds are unique because social structures are essential for the etiology of human kinds. Others argue that human cultural evolution is decidedly different from other forms of evolution. In this paper I suggest that the gulf between humans and our biological relatives is not as wide as some argue. There is a taxonomic difference between human and nonhuman organisms, but suc…Read more
-
59The evolution of the linnaean hierarchyBiology and Philosophy 12 (4): 493-519. 1997.The Linnaean system of classification is a threefold system of theoretical assumptions, sorting rules, and rules of nomenclature. Over time, that system has lost its theoretical assumptions as well as its sorting rules. Cladistic revisions have left it less and less Linnaean. And what remains of the system is flawed on pragmatic grounds. Taking all of this into account, it is time to consider alternative systems of classification.