scholarly journals The general form of Hamilton’s rule makes no predictions and cannot be tested empirically

2017 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 5665-5670 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin A. Nowak ◽  
Alex McAvoy ◽  
Benjamin Allen ◽  
Edward O. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Natural Selection ◽  
Natural Law ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Hamilton’S Rule ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Hamilton's Rule ◽  
Law Making

Hamilton’s rule asserts that a trait is favored by natural selection if the benefit to others, B, multiplied by relatedness, R, exceeds the cost to self, C. Specifically, Hamilton’s rule states that the change in average trait value in a population is proportional to BR−C. This rule is commonly believed to be a natural law making important predictions in biology, and its influence has spread from evolutionary biology to other fields including the social sciences. Whereas many feel that Hamilton’s rule provides valuable intuition, there is disagreement even among experts as to how the quantities B, R, and C should be defined for a given system. Here, we investigate a widely endorsed formulation of Hamilton’s rule, which is said to be as general as natural selection itself. We show that, in this formulation, Hamilton’s rule does not make predictions and cannot be tested empirically. It turns out that the parameters B and C depend on the change in average trait value and therefore cannot predict that change. In this formulation, which has been called “exact and general” by its proponents, Hamilton’s rule can “predict” only the data that have already been given.

Divergence and Possible Consilience Between Evolutionary Biology and Sociology

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Machalek
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Natural Selection ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Academic Discipline ◽  
Late 19Th Century ◽  
Theory Of Evolution ◽  
American Sociology ◽  
The Social ◽  
Evolution By Natural Selection

During its emergence as a new academic discipline in the late 19th century, sociology was influenced by Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. By the mid-20th century, however, biological thinking in general and evolutionary theory in particular had waned in influence in American sociology. This began to change during the last quarter of the 20th century—a development due in large part to the work of Edward O. Wilson, a prominent biologist and one of the founders of sociobiology. By the dawn of the 21st century, evolutionary thinking had again gained a foothold in the social sciences, including sociology. However, full consilience between evolutionary biology and sociology has not yet been achieved. This chapter reviews issues in terms of which evolutionary biology and sociology converge in some instances and diverge in others. The chapter concludes with an assessment of the prospects for the development of a robust evolutionary sociology.

Social Evolution, Hamilton’s Rule, and Inclusive Fitness

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samir Okasha
Keyword(s):  
Social Behaviour ◽  
Social Evolution ◽  
Inclusive Fitness ◽  
Popular Approach ◽  
Hamilton’S Rule ◽  
Inclusive Fitness Theory ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Encounters ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Hamilton's Rule

Inclusive fitness theory, originally due to W. D. Hamilton, is a popular approach to the study of social evolution, but shrouded in controversy. The theory contains two distinct aspects: Hamilton’s rule (rB > C); and the idea that individuals will behave as if trying to maximize their inclusive fitness in social encounters. These two aspects of the theory are logically separable but often run together. A generalized version of Hamilton’s rule can be formulated that is always true, though whether it is causally meaningful is debatable. However, the individual maximization claim only holds true if the payoffs from the social encounter are additive. The notion that inclusive fitness is the ‘goal’ of individuals’ social behaviour is less robust than some of its advocates acknowledge.

scholarly journals The evolution of superstitious and superstition-like behaviour

2008 ◽  
Vol 276 (1654) ◽  
pp. 31-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin R Foster ◽  
Hanna Kokko
Keyword(s):  
Popular Culture ◽  
Natural Selection ◽  
Simple Model ◽  
Correct Response ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Adaptive Behaviour ◽  
Multiple Events ◽  
Cause And Effect ◽  
Pascal’S Wager ◽  
Hamilton's Rule

Superstitious behaviours, which arise through the incorrect assignment of cause and effect, receive considerable attention in psychology and popular culture. Perhaps owing to their seeming irrationality, however, they receive little attention in evolutionary biology. Here we develop a simple model to define the condition under which natural selection will favour assigning causality between two events. This leads to an intuitive inequality—akin to an amalgam of Hamilton's rule and Pascal's wager—-that shows that natural selection can favour strategies that lead to frequent errors in assessment as long as the occasional correct response carries a large fitness benefit. It follows that incorrect responses are the most common when the probability that two events are really associated is low to moderate: very strong associations are rarely incorrect, while natural selection will rarely favour making very weak associations. Extending the model to include multiple events identifies conditions under which natural selection can favour associating events that are never causally related. Specifically, limitations on assigning causal probabilities to pairs of events can favour strategies that lump non-causal associations with causal ones. We conclude that behaviours which are, or appear, superstitious are an inevitable feature of adaptive behaviour in all organisms, including ourselves.

scholarly journals A Field Guide for Teaching Evolution in the Social Sciences

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristine Legare ◽  
John Opfer ◽  
Justin Busch ◽  
Andrew Shtulman
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Natural Selection ◽  
Developmental Psychology ◽  
Cultural Practices ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Teaching Evolution ◽  
Field Guide ◽  
Theory Of Evolution ◽  
The Social ◽  
Evolution Understanding

The theory of evolution by natural selection has begun to revolutionize our understanding of perception, cognition, language, social behavior, and cultural practices. Despite the centrality of evolutionary theory to the social sciences, many students, teachers, and even scientists struggle to understand how natural selection works. Our goal is to provide a field guide for social scientists on teaching evolution, based on research in cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, and education. We synthesize what is known about the psychological obstacles to understanding evolution, methods for assessing evolution understanding, and pedagogical strategies for improving evolution understanding. We review what is known about teaching evolution about nonhuman species and then explore implications of these findings for the teaching of evolution about humans. By leveraging our knowledge of how to teach evolution in general, we hope to motivate and equip social scientists to begin teaching evolution in the context of their own field.

The Role of Science

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gilles Saint-Paul
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Population Distribution ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Social Planner ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Gains And Losses ◽  
Social Engineer

This chapter describes the social sciences. Unlike the natural sciences, the social sciences are inevitably statistical. When documenting human behavior, for example, they can at most claim that a trait is present in a certain fraction of the population. However, the social engineer of the paternalistic state must take into account that the “science of happiness” that is being implemented does not apply uniformly to all individuals. A policy that benefits some by preventing mistakes or removing their biases harms those who are immune to these issues. This difficulty, however, entirely disappears as long as the state is utilitarian or, more generally, pursues any objective that aggregates welfare between individuals, for the statistics are the only thing the utilitarian needs to know. Once the population distribution of the relevant effects and mechanisms is known, the social planner can safely use it to balance gains and losses across incarnations and perform the cost-benefit analysis of its policies.

Evolution: Medicine’s most basic science

2020 ◽  
pp. 39-42
Author(s):  
Randolph M. Nesse ◽  
Richard Dawkins
Keyword(s):  
Population Genetics ◽  
Natural Selection ◽  
Basic Science ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Phylogenetic Trees ◽  
The Body ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
The Cost

The role of evolutionary biology as a basic science for medicine is expanding rapidly. Some evolutionary methods are already widely applied in medicine, such as population genetics and methods for analysing phylogenetic trees. Newer applications come from seeking evolutionary as well as proximate explanations for disease. Traditional medical research is restricted to proximate studies of the body’s mechanism, but separate evolutionary explanations are needed for why natural selection has left many aspects of the body vulnerable to disease. There are six main possibilities: mismatch, infection, constraints, trade-offs, reproduction at the cost of health, and adaptive defences. Like other basic sciences, evolutionary biology has limited direct clinical implications, but it provides essential research methods, encourages asking new questions that foster a deeper understanding of disease, and provides a framework that organizes the facts of medicine.

Natural Law and Mechanical Engineering

1984 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-33
Author(s):  
P. C. Haarhoff
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Natural Law ◽  
Natural Science ◽  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Social Progress ◽  
Human Sciences ◽  
Technological Revolution ◽  
Social Standards ◽  
The Social

The first technological revolution, in the fourth millennium BC, was followed by immense social progress. The second revolution, which is now taking place, could lead to an even greater development in the human sciences, by setting men free from their daily struggle for existence while simultaneously exacting high social standards. Natural law - the “marriage between the ways of heaven and the ways of earth” of the Chinese - represents a route to such progress. In natural science and technology, natural law demands that conclusions be based on observation rather than speculation. The social sciences would do well to follow this example.

Evolutionary social science beyond culture

2006 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 356-356
Author(s):  
Harold Kincaid
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Natural Selection ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Social Processes ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Explanations ◽  
The Common

Mesoudi et al.'s case can be improved by expanding to compelling selectionist explanations elsewhere in the social sciences and by seeing that natural selection is an instance of general selectionist process. Obstacles include the common use of extreme idealizations and optimality evidence, the copresence of nonselectionist social processes, and the fact that selectionist explanations often presuppose other kinds of social explanations.

The Evolution of Evolutionary Theory

2010 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 287-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Bateson
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Evolutionary Theory ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Charles Darwin ◽  
200Th Anniversary ◽  
The Social ◽  
Philosophy And Religion

Charles Darwin has had an extraordinary impact on many aspects of human affairs apart from revolutionizing biology. On the 200th anniversary of his birth, the Cambridge Darwin Festival in July 2009 celebrated these contributions to the humanities, philosophy and religion and the approach to medicine, economics and the social sciences. He is a man to revere. It is no discredit to him that the science of evolutionary biology should continue to evolve. In this article I shall consider some of the ways in which this has happened since his day.

Natural Law, Natural Rights, and Classical Liberalism: On Montesquieu's Critique of Hobbes

2001 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 227-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Zuckert
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Natural Law ◽  
Classical Liberalism ◽  
Ernst Bloch ◽  
Social Theorist ◽  
The Social ◽  
Hugo Grotius ◽  
International Encyclopedia ◽  
Comprehensive Survey ◽  
Minor Character

Montesquieu is not often thought of as a significant natural law thinker. The article on natural law in theInternational Encyclopedia of the Social Sciencesdiscusses many theorists of the natural law, but Montesquieu is not among them. A valuable older survey of natural law theorizing by legal philosopher A. P. d'Entrèves cites the Frenchman but once, as a very minor character in a story with far more significant actors—Thomas Aquinas, Hugo Grotius, even Georg Hegel. A yet more comprehensive survey of the topic,Natural Law and Human Dignity, by French philosopher and social theorist Ernst Bloch, does not mention Montesquieu at all.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document