Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-bvgqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T19:51:56.458Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interpretations of Probability in Evolutionary Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Roberta L. Millstein
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ubiquitous probabilities of evolutionary theory (ET) spark the question: Which interpretation of probability is the most appropriate for ET? There is reason to think that, whatever we take probabilities in ET to be, they must be consistent with both determinism and indeterminism. I argue that the probabilities used in ET are objective in a realist sense, if not in an indeterministic sense. Furthermore, there are a number of interpretations of probability that are objective and would be consistent with deterministic evolution and indeterministic evolution. However, I suggest that evolutionary probabilities are best understood as propensities of population-level kinds.

Information

Type
Evolutionary Theory
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 70 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2002 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers , December 2003 , pp. 1317 - 1328
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

‡

I would like to thank Lisa Gannett, Elliott Sober, Marcel Weber, and members of the audiences at PSA 2002 and Northwest Philosophy Conference 2002 for helpful comments on this paper. I would also like to thank Lindley Darden and the University of Maryland's Committee on the History and Philosophy of Science for helpful comments on an earlier version. This work was supported by a Faculty Support Grant from California State University, Hayward.

References

Brandon, Robert, and Carson, Scott (1996), “The Indeterministic Character of Evolutionary Theory: No ‘No Hidden Variables’ Proof But No Room for Determinism Either”, The Indeterministic Character of Evolutionary Theory: No ‘No Hidden Variables’ Proof But No Room for Determinism Either 63:315–337.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, Theodosius, and Pavlovsky, Olga (1957), “An Experimental Study of Interaction Between Genetic Drift and Natural Selection”, An Experimental Study of Interaction Between Genetic Drift and Natural Selection 11:311–319.Google Scholar
Fetzer, James H. (1981), Scientific Knowledge. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, Ronald N. (1973), “Objective Single-Case Probabilities and the Foundations of Statistics”, in Suppes, Patrick, Henkin, L., Moisil, G. and Joja, A. (eds.), Logic, Methodology, and the Philosophy of Science, IV. North-Holland: American Elsevier, 467–483.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald N. (1976), “A Laplacean Formal Semantics for Single-Case Propensities”, A Laplacean Formal Semantics for Single-Case Propensities 5:321–353.Google Scholar
Gillies, Donald (2000), Philosophical Theories of Probability. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Glymour, Bruce (2001), “Selection, Indeterminism, and Evolutionary Theory”, Selection, Indeterminism, and Evolutionary Theory 68:518–535.Google Scholar
Graves, Leslie, Horan, Barbara L., and Rosenberg, Alex (1999), “Is Indeterminism the Source of the Statistical Character of Evolutionary Theory?” Philosophy of Science 66:140–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartl, Daniel L., and Clark, Andrew G. (1989), Principles of Population Genetics, Second Edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Millstein, Roberta L. (2000), “Is the Evolutionary Process Deterministic or Indeterministic? An Argument for Agnosticism”, Presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vancouver, Canada, November 2000, http://hypatia.ss.uci.edu/lps/psa2k/evolutionary-agnosticism.pdf.Google Scholar
Millstein, Roberta L. (2002), “Are Random Drift and Natural Selection Conceptually Distinct?” Biology & Philosophy 17: 3353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl R. (1959), “The Propensity Interpretation of Probability”, The Propensity Interpretation of Probability 10:25–42.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. (1967), “Quantum Mechanics without ‘The Observer’”, in Bunge, Mario (ed.), Quantum Theory and Reality: Studies in the Foundations, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 2. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 7–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Alex (1994), Instrumental Biology or the Disunity of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Alex (2001), “Discussion Note: Indeterminism, Probability, and Randomness in Evolutionary Theory”, Discussion Note: Indeterminism, Probability, and Randomness in Evolutionary Theory 68:536–544.Google Scholar
Roughgarden, Jonathan (1996), Theory of Population Genetics and Evolutionary Ecology: An Introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Schneider, Christina (1994), “Two Interpretations of Objective Probability. On the Ambiguity of Popper's Conception of Propensities”, Two Interpretations of Objective Probability. On the Ambiguity of Popper's Conception of Propensities 31:107–131.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott (1984), The Nature of Selection. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Stamos, David N. (2001), “Quantum Indeterminism and Evolutionary Biology”, Quantum Indeterminism and Evolutionary Biology 68:164–184.Google Scholar
Strevens, Michael (ms.), The Kairetic Account of Explanation.Google Scholar
Weber, Marcel (2001), “Determinism, Realism, and Probability in Evolutionary Theory”, Determinism, Realism, and Probability in Evolutionary Theory 68 (Proceedings): S213–S224.Google Scholar
Weisberg, Michael (2003), When Less Is More: Tradeoffs and Idealization in Model Building. Ph.D. Dissertation. Stanford University.Google Scholar