Katie Deaven

The new foundation for the propensity interpretation of fitness (PIF), developed by Pence and Ramsey (Br J Philos Sci 64:851–881, 2013), describes fitness as a probability distribution that encompasses all possible daughter populations to which the organism may give rise, including daughter populations in which traits might change and the possible environments that members of the daughter populations might encounter. This long-term definition of fitness is general enough to avoid counterexamples faced by previous mathematical conceptions of PIF. However, there seem to be downsides to its generality: the ecological role of fitness involves describing the degree of adaptedness between an organism and the specific environment it inhabits. When all possible changes in traits and all possible environments that a daughter population may encounter are included in the concept, it becomes difficult to see how fitness can fulfill this role. In this paper, we argue that this is a feature of Pence and Ramsey’s view rather than a bug: long-term fitness accommodates evolvability considerations, which concern the role that variation plays in evolutionary processes. Building on the foundations, we show that Pence and Ramsey’s fitness—_F_—can be partitioned into fourths: adaptedness, robustness of adaptedness, and two facets of evolvability. Conceptualizing these last three components forces us to consider the role played by grains of description of both organisms and the environment when thinking about long-term fitness. They track the possibility that there could be a change in type in a daughter population as a way of responding to environmental challenges, or that the type persists in the face of novel environments. We argue that these components are just as salient as adaptedness for long-term fitness. Together, this decomposition of _F_ provides a more accurate picture of the factors involved in long-term evolutionary success.

Several prominent debates in biology, such as those surrounding adaptationism, group selection, and punctuated equilibrium, have focused on disagreements about the relative importance of a cause in producing a phenomenon of interest. Some philosophers, such as John Beatty have expressed scepticism about the scientific value of engaging in these controversies, and Karen Kovaka has suggested that their value might be limited. In this paper, I challenge that scepticism by giving a novel analysis of relative significance controversies, showing that there are three forms they can take. I argue that these controversies can have significant epistemic upshots, in that they help scientists form predictions about new instances of the phenomenon of interest. Finally, using two historical examples, I show how engaging in these controversies can improve our understanding of causal relationships.