Samir Okasha

In his “A New Program for Philosophy of Science?”, Ronald Giere expresses qualms regarding the critical and political projects I advocate for philosophy of science—that the critical project assumes an underdetermination absent from actual science, and the political project takes us outside the professional pursuit of philosophy of science. In reply I contend that the underdetermination the critical project assumes does occur in actual science, and I provide a variety of examples to support this. And I contend that the political project requires no more than what other academic fields even in science studies are already providing.

This volume explores from multiple perspectives the subtle and interesting relationship between the theory of rational choice and Darwinian evolution. In rational choice theory, agents are assumed to make choices that maximize their utility; in evolution, natural selection 'chooses' between phenotypes according to the criterion of fitness maximization. So there is a parallel between utility in rational choice theory and fitness in Darwinian theory. This conceptual link between fitness and utility is mirrored by the interesting parallels between formal models of evolution and rational choice. The essays in this volume, by leading philosophers, economists, biologists and psychologists, explore the connection between evolution and rational choice in a number of different contexts, including choice under uncertainty, strategic decision making and pro-social behaviour. They will be of interest to students and researchers in philosophy of science, evolutionary biology, economics and psychology.

A number of recent philosophers, including Michael Williams, Barry Stroud and Donald Davidson, have argued that scepticism about the external world stems from the founda‐tionalist assumption that sensory experience supplies the data for our beliefs about the world. In order to assess this thesis, I offer a brief characterisation of the logical form of sceptical arguments. I suggest that sceptical arguments rely on the idea that many of our beliefs about the world are‘underdetermined’by the evidence on which they are based. Drawing on this characterisation of scepticism, I argue that Williams, Stroud and Davidson are right to see the foundationalist assumption as essential to the sceptic's argument, but wrong to think that scepticism is inevitable once that assumption is in place. By pursuing an analogy with some recent debates in the philosophy of science, I try to locate the additional assumptions which the sceptic must make, in order to derive her conclusion.

Discoverer of the theory of evolution by natural selection, and thus the founder of modern evolutionary biology, Charles Darwin is responsible for one of the most fundamental and far‐reaching contributions to the modern scientific world view. Born in 1809 in Shrewsbury into a wealthy Victorian family, Darwin was educated at the universities of Edinburgh and Cambridge. Though his formal education was of little interest to him ‐ “my time was wasted, as far as the academical studies were concerned” (1969, p. 58) ‐ Cambridge did provide the opportunity to pursue his childhood interest in natural history. Upon graduating in 1831, Darwin joined a charting expedition around South America on board HMS Beagle, which was to last for five years. During this time, he made lengthy expeditions inland, studying the flora, fauna, and geology of South America and the Pacific Islands, and accumulating a massive biological and geological collection. These years were critical for Darwin's intellectual development, as he admitted, sowing the seeds of his doubt in the fixity of individual species. Darwin was impressed by a large number of facts that could not be explained on the assumption of the fixity of species, including the close structural similarities between extinct and living species revealed by the fossil record. Most important of all were the tortoises and finches of the Galapagos Islands: each island was inhabited by very similar, yet distinct varieties ‐ clear evidence for Darwin of common ancestry shaped by adaptation to local conditions. The creatures of the Galapagos, Darwin wrote, bring us close “to that great fact ‐ that mystery of mysteries ‐ the first appearance of new beings on this earth” (1839, p. 466).