Paulo C. Abrantes

The paper starts with a distinction between kinds of description that can be proposed for a populational dynamics, including a ‘Darwinian’ description, in terms of variation, inheritance and differential fitness, engaging the entities that make up the relevant population. It follows with a categorization of different kinds of cultural populations and an investigation of the most general conditions that have to be fulfilled for an evolutionary and Darwinian dynamics to take place in those populations, especially in the population comprised by the cultural traits themselves. We make salient some approaches to the evolution in the human lineage, such as dual inheritance theory and memetics, that place cultural evolution at the center of their scenarios. In this way, those approaches contribute to the development of a general theory of cultural evolution, and we compare them, in this respect, with other approaches. Those confrontations grant also illustrations of the analogies between biological evolution and cultural evolution, as well as failures in the analogy.

This paper scrutinizes two research programs that advocate respectively for the existence of a universal moral grammar and a predisposition to moralize behaviours with certain contents. It focuses on how the arguments commonly used to ground each program fare at relevant contemporary research in cognitive science and how well they meet constructivist arguments proposed by Jesse Prinz and Kim Sterelny, among others. We argue that there is little evidence that our moral judgements follow the model of principles and parameters. At the same time, ‘ease of learning’ suggests that the human brain is somehow prepared to learn moral rules.Cet article analyse deux programmes de recherche qui soutiennent, respectivement, l’existence d’une grammaire morale universelle et d’une prédisposition à assigner des valeurs morales à des comportements liés à certains contenus. Nous proposons d’évaluer les arguments utilisés par chaque programme en regard de la recherche contemporaine en sciences cognitives, et aussi de vérifier s’ils répondent aux objections constructivistes proposées entre autres par Jesse Prinz et Kim Sterelny. Nous montrons qu’il n’y a pas de preuves suffisantes comme quoi nos jugements moraux suivent le modèle des principes et des paramètres. La «facilité d’apprentissage» suggère, néanmoins, que le cerveau humain est en quelque sorte préparé à apprendre les règles morales.

Verifica-se um fértil intercâmbio entre filósofos e biólogos, de modo especial nas investigações contemporâneas sobre a evolução humana. Avalio, inicialmente, o compatibilismo como postura filosófica, que coloca em evidência a possibilidade de que hábitos de interpretação, com base numa psicologia de senso comum, tenham desempenhado um papel na evolução em nossa linhagem. Essa hipótese pode lançar luz sobre dilemas que surgem na construção de uma teoria que pressuponha a interação entre modalidades genética e cultural de herança. Para que a cultura desempenhe essa função, é necessário que evoluam capacidades especiais para a aprendizagem social, que estariam associadas a capacidades para interpretar o comportamento de agentes. Num registro metafísico, discuto as condições para que grupos culturais possam ser considerados indivíduos no sentido de unidades de seleção. Num registro metodológico, eu analiso também o emprego de modelos matemáticos em tentativas de se construir cenários plausíveis para a evolução que nos tornou humanos.

A darwinian evolutionary approach can contribute to reassess philosophical problems in different fields, including ethics and moral theory. Sociobiology and evolutionary psychology address these issues by presupposing mechanisms such as kin selection and reciprocal altruism. However, these mechanisms can’t account for cooperation in the human species. Dual inheritance theory addresses human cooperation differently, by taking into account the above-mentioned classical biological mechanisms without ignoring, however, relevant knowledge produced by social scientists. According to this approach, human social psychology comprises tribal social instincts and symbolic markers. One implication of this approach is that there are innate and universal moral principles hardwired in the human mind-brain, which where selected through an evolutionary process that makes life possible in large, structured social groups. Although innate, these principles are plastically shaped to meet the demands of different cultural niches in particular societies.

In this paper I argue that Kuhn's analysis of the role played by 'exemplars' in normal science should be considered one of his most important contributions to the Philosophy of Science. The paper makes a detailed analysis of the relationship between the various elements of a 'disciplinary matrix'- empirical generalizations, models and exemplars - starting with Kuhn's views as exposed in various of his books and papers. Kuhn's analysis is investigated in the context of the discussions, in the 50s and 60s, about the notion of 'model' in the so called 'received view' of the structure of scientific theories. I refer also to the critics of logical empiricism at this time, that were concerned with analogical models and inspired by Campbell's studies on the dynamics of theories. I argue also that Polanyi's notion of 'tacit knowledge' and some of his discussions of the role played by analogies in mathematics have been an important influence on Kuhn. The paper indicates, furthermore, how Kuhn's intuitions concerning exemplars are being developped in the present, by philosophers of science like Thagard, Paul Churchland and Giere, that adopt a 'cognitivist' stance towards scientific reasoning.

When is conceptual change so significant that we should talk about a new theory, not a new version of the same theory? We address this problem here, starting from Gould’s discussion of the individuation of the Darwinian theory. He locates his position between two extremes: ‘minimalist’—a theory should be individuated merely by its insertion in a historical lineage—and ‘maximalist’—exhaustive lists of necessary and sufficient conditions are required for individuation. He imputes the minimalist position to Hull and attempts a reductio : this position leads us to give the same ‘name’ to contradictory theories. Gould’s ‘structuralist’ position requires both ‘conceptual continuity’ and descent for individuation. Hull’s attempt to assimilate into his general selectionist framework Kuhn’s notion of ‘exemplar’ and the ‘semantic’ view of the structure of scientific theories can be used to counter Gould’s reductio , and also to integrate structuralist and population thinking about conceptual change.

Some "major" evolutionary transitions have been described as transitions in individuality. In this depiction, natural selection might bring about new kinds of individuals, whose evolutionary dynamics takes place in a novel way. Using a categorization proposed by Godfrey-Smith, this transition is fully accomplished when a new "paradigmatic" Darwinian population emerges. In this paper I investigate whether at some point in the evolution in the hominin lineage a transition of this kind might have happened, by assuming some of the theses of dual inheritance theory, especially about the role played by a conformist bias. I argue that Godfrey-Smith misses in his book a scenario in which conformism is one of the preconditions for a transition towards a Darwinian population of cultural groups.

: This paper gives a historical overview of the ways various trends in the philosophy of science dealt with models and their relationship with the topics of heuristics and theoretical dynamics. First of all, N. Campbell’s account of analogies as components of scientific theories is presented. Next, the notion of ‘model’ in the reconstruction of the structure of scientific theories proposed by logical empiricists is examined. This overview finishes with M. Hesse’s attempts to develop Campbell’s early ideas in terms of an analogical inference. The final part of the paper points to contemporary developments on these issues which adopt a cognitivist perspective. It is indicated how discussions in the cognitive sciences might help to flesh out some of the insights philosophers of science had concerning the role models and analogies play in actual scientific theorizing. Key words: models, analogical reasoning, metaphors in science, the structure of scientific theories, theoretical dynamics, heuristics, scientific discovery

The theory of evolution sparked a series of questions about the origins of moral judgments and the underpinning principles. In particular, it reinforced the debate about moral nativism. In this paper we scrutinize two research programs that advocate respectively the existence of an innate ability to judge morally and a predisposition to moralize behaviors with certain contents. The best-known version of moral nativism argues for the existence of a moral grammar, by analogy with the Chomskyan model of principles and parameters in linguistics. The second program argues for the existence of a moral domain, i.e., of a small set of moral intuitions found in all societies. We critically evaluate the arguments commonly used to ground both theories: ease of learning even in face of poverty of stimulus; the principle of double effect; the pre-established order of moral development in individuals; universality and antiquity of the moral phenomenon. We are concerned with how they fare at relevant contemporary research in Cognitive Science and meet constructivist arguments proposed by Jesse Prinz and Kim Sterelny, among others. We found out that there is little evidence that our moral judgments follow the model of principles and parameters, although it can be useful as a heuristic device for guiding future research. At the same time, ease of learning suggests that the human brain is somehow prepared to learn moral rules and that the types of rule we adopt are constrained by our biology. Furthermore, the fact that the capacity to make moral judgments develops according to a similar schedule in different cultures indicates that it is an endogenous one. Although it depends, for sure, on the existence of culture, it is not reducible to cultural phenomena. Based on a distinction made by Darwin between social instincts and intellectual powers we argue that thinking in a normative way requires being aware of the grounds of our beliefs and actions, and this implies self-consciousness. It is difficult to discern if morality is an adaptation or just a spandrel. Even if it might have emerged as a side effect in our evolutionary history, it might have undergone subsequent adaptive structural changes, possibly because of interactions with cultural dynamics

This paper investigates whether it is fruitful to describe the role culture began to play at some point in the Hominin lineage as pointing to a transition in individuality, by reference to the works of Buss, Maynard-Smith and Szathmáry, Michod and Godfrey-Smith. The chief question addressed is whether a population of groups having different cultural phenotypes is either paradigmatically Darwinian or marginal, by using Godfrey-Smith's representation of such transitions in a multi-dimensional space. Richerson and Boyd's «dual inheritance» theory, and the explanation it provides of the evolution of cooperation in the Hominin lineage, is taken into account to shed light on the way Godfrey-Smith deals with cultural evolution, especially concerning the amount of variation in a population of groups with various cultural phenotypes, the role played by multi-level selection in the evolutionary dynamics of such a population and the adequacy of different modalities of group- reproduction.

Neste artigo examinamos os aspectos epistemológicos e jurídicos dacontrovérsia que opõe darwinistas e criacionistas no contexto de decisõesacerca do currículo nas escolas públicas. Essa controvérsia, já antiga epersistente no cenário norte-americano, adquiriu recentemente relevo noBrasil por meio da Lei Estadual n. 3.459/2000, do Estado do Rio de Janeiro.A primeira seção do artigo expõe as principais teses defendidas pelosdarwinistas e pelos criacionistas. Mostramos que os criacionistasmodificaram o modo como apresentaram suas convicções centrais, emfunção das decisões judiciais que têm impedido o ensino do criacionismonas escolas públicas norte-americanas. Em seguida, discutimos o papelque os filósofos podem ter num debate judicial, tomando como modelo ocaso McLean vs. Arkansas Board of Education, em que o filósofo MichaelRuse foi ouvido como testemunha. Os critérios propostos por Ruse paracaracterizar a atividade científica e seus produtos – que conduzem, emúltima instância, a descartar o criacionismo como uma doutrina nãocientífica-, são o ponto de partida de uma tentativa de explicitar as imagensde natureza e de ciência que se consolidaram desde o advento da ciênciamoderna. Nesta segunda parte do artigo, também analisamos asdivergências entre Ruse, Larry Laudan e Barry Gross a respeito darelevância e legitimidade do chamado “problema da demarcação” numcontexto filosófico, bem como num contexto jurídico. A terceira seção doartigo busca mostrar que a controvérsia norte-americana não é, contudo, opano de fundo adequado para se avaliar as implicações da Lei Estadual n.3.459/2000. Argumentamos, além disso, que a sua constitucionalidade ébastante discutível, quando examinada a partir do direito à liberdadereligiosa.In this paper we examine the epistemological and juridical aspects of thecontroversy that opposes darwinists and creationists in the context ofdecisions concerning the public school syllabus. This old and enduringcontroversy in the North-American scenario, became recently salient inBrazil through the law n. 3.459/2000 of the Rio de Janeiro State. The firstsection of the paper attempts to present the main theses sustained by thedarwinists and by the creationists. We show that the creationists changedthe way they presented their chief commitments as a response to decisionsin the courts, which rejected the teaching of creationism in the North-American public schools. In what follows, we discuss the role philosophersmight play in debates in the courts, taking as a model the McLean vs.Arkansas Board of Education case, in which the philosopher Michael Rusewas a witness. The criteria proposed by Ruse to characterize the scientificactivity and its products – which lead ultimately to discard creationism asa non-scientific doctrine –, are the starting point of an attempt to makeexplicit the images of nature and science that coalesced since the inceptionof modern science. In the second section of the paper we also analyze theclash of opinions between Ruse, Larry Laudan and Barry Gross concerningthe relevance and legitimacy of the so-called “demarcation problem” in aphilosophical context, as well as in a juridical context. The third section ofthe paper attempts to show that the North-American controversy is not anadequate background, though, for analyzing the implications of the StateLaw n. 3.459/2000. We argue, furthermore, that its constitutionality isquestionable, given the right to religious freedom.

This paper aims at integrating the work onanalogical reasoning in Cognitive Science into thelong trend of philosophical interest, in this century,in analogical reasoning as a basis for scientificmodeling. In the first part of the paper, threesimulations of analogical reasoning, proposed incognitive science, are presented: Gentner''s StructureMatching Engine, Mitchel''s and Hofstadter''s COPYCATand the Analogical Constraint Mapping Engine, proposedby Holyoak and Thagard. The differences andcontroversial points in these simulations arehighlighted in order to make explicit theirpresuppositions concerning the nature of analogicalreasoning. In the last part, this debate in cognitivescience is applied to some traditional philosophicalaccounts of formal and material analogies as a basisfor scientific modeling, like Mary Hesse`s, and tomore recent ones, that already draw from the work inArtificial Intelligence, like that proposed byAronson, Harré and Way