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.

The Gene's-Eye View of Evolution

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Arvid Ågren
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Charles Darwin ◽  
Evolutionary Genetics ◽  
Selfish Gene ◽  
Theory Of Evolution ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
Oxford University ◽  
The Social ◽  
Evolution By Natural Selection

To many evolutionary biologists, the central challenge of their discipline is to explain adaptation, the appearance of design in the living world. With the theory of evolution by natural selection, Charles Darwin elegantly showed how a purely mechanistic process can achieve this striking feature of nature. Since Darwin, the way many biologists think about evolution and natural selection is as a theory about individual organisms. Over a century later, a subtle but radical shift in perspective emerged with the gene’s-eye view of evolution in which natural selection was conceptualized as a struggle between genes for replication and transmission to the next generation. This viewpoint culminated with the publication of The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins (Oxford University Press, 1976) and is now commonly referred to as selfish gene thinking. The gene’s-eye view has subsequently played a central role in evolutionary biology, although it continues to attract controversy. The central aim of this accessible book is to show how the gene’s-eye view differs from the traditional organismal account of evolution, trace its historical origins, clarify typical misunderstandings and, by using examples from contemporary experimental work, show why so many evolutionary biologists still consider it an indispensable heuristic. The book concludes by discussing how selfish gene thinking fits into ongoing debates in evolutionary biology, and what they tell us about the future of the gene’s-eye view of evolution. The Gene’s-Eye View of Evolution is suitable for graduate-level students taking courses in evolutionary biology, behavioural ecology, and evolutionary genetics, as well as professional researchers in these fields. It will also appeal to a broader, interdisciplinary audience from the social sciences and humanities including philosophers and historians of science

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.

Contributions to the History of Psychology: XCV. Possible Relations between Theories of Evolution and Animal Learning

1993 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 211-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse E. Purdy ◽  
Arthur Harriman ◽  
Joseph Molitorisz
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
Learning Theory ◽  
World View ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Learning Theories ◽  
Late 19Th Century ◽  
Theory Of Evolution ◽  
History Of ◽  
Theories Of Evolution

It is proposed that the dominance of continuity learning theory as set against noncontinuity learning theory during the middle third of the 20th century rested importantly on its derivation from Darwin's theory of evolution. The kinship is shown in several ways. First, Thorndike and Hull echoed the principle of natural selection in their belief that behaviors underwent gradual modification because acts that were attended steadily by favorable consequences tended to occur with increasing frequency. Second, they denied both nonphysical explanations of behavior and a priori purposes which might guide that behavior. Third, the laws of learning were said to hold for all organisms. It is argued that the continuity approach may have enjoyed success because it was consistent with the Darwinian world view. Had punctualist, rather than gradualist, explanations of evolution come to the fore in the late 19th century, learning theories might have proceeded quite differently with the dominance of noncontinuity approaches.

scholarly journals Darwin would have loved DNA: celebrating Darwin 200

2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 503-505 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindell Bromham
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Dna Sequences ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Evolutionary Genetics ◽  
Theory Of Evolution ◽  
To Come ◽  
Evolution By Natural Selection ◽  
Biology Research

Analysis of DNA sequences now plays a key role in evolutionary biology research. If Darwin were to come back today, I think he would be absolutely delighted with molecular evolutionary genetics, for three reasons. First, it solved one of the greatest problems for his theory of evolution by natural selection. Second, it gives us a tool that can be used to investigate many of the questions he found the most fascinating. And third, DNA data confirm Darwin's grand view of evolution.

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.

scholarly journals Turing Machines and Evolution. A Critique of Gregory Chaitin’s Metabiology

2016 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-150
Author(s):  
Radosław Siedliński
Keyword(s):  
Mathematical Model ◽  
Natural Selection ◽  
Turing Machines ◽  
Theory Of Evolution ◽  
Evolution By Natural Selection

Abstract The aim of the paper is twofold. First, it presents the fundamental ideas and results of the “metabiology” created by Gregory Chaitin. Second, it shows why metabiology ultimately fails as a candidate for being a proper mathematical model for the theory of evolution by natural selection. Because of genocentric reductionism and biological oversimplifications, metabiology should be perceived rather as an expression of the philosophical worldview of it’s author.

2. Evolution and natural selection

2019 ◽  
pp. 9-26
Author(s):  
Samir Okasha
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Charles Darwin ◽  
Natural World ◽  
Early 20Th Century ◽  
Philosophical Argument ◽  
Modern Biology ◽  
Theory Of Evolution ◽  
Philosophical Significance ◽  
Argument From Design ◽  
Evolution By Natural Selection

In 1859 Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, in which he set out his theory of evolution. The book marked a turning point in our understanding of the natural world and revolutionized biology. ‘Evolution and natural selection’ outlines the theory of evolution by natural selection, explaining its unique status in biology and its philosophical significance. It considers how Darwin’s theory undermined the ‘argument from design’, a traditional philosophical argument for the existence of God; how the integration of Darwin’s theory with genetics, in the early 20th century, gave rise to neo-Darwinism; and why, despite evolutionary theory being a mainstay of modern biology, in society at large there is a marked reluctance to believe in evolution.

What the human annals tell us

1999 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 888-888 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gwen J. Broude
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Natural Selection ◽  
Kin Selection ◽  
Reciprocal Altruism ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Mental Processes ◽  
Theory Of Evolution ◽  
Evolution By Natural Selection ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
Cultural Data

Evidence reveals numerous cross-cultural universals regarding human mental processes and behavior. Similarly, cross-cultural data are consistent with predictions from theories of kin selection, reciprocal altruism, and sexual selection inspired by Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Thus, the “annals of human behaviour” do provide “example[s] fitting the sociobiological bill,” (Lifelines, p. 202) thereby, supporting sociobiological accounts of human behavior.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document