進化生物学と適応主義

松本 俊吉

doi:10.11439/philosophy1952.2004.90

進化生物学と適応主義

松本俊吉

著者情報

ジャーナルフリー

2004 年 2004 巻 55 号 p. 90-112,23

DOI https://doi.org/10.11439/philosophy1952.2004.90

詳細

発行日: 2004/04/01 受付日: - J-STAGE公開日: 2009/07/23 受理日: - 早期公開日: - 改訂日: -
訂正情報
訂正日: 2009/07/23 訂正理由: - 訂正箇所: 論文抄録訂正内容: Wrong : The objective of this article is to clarify the nature of the methodological position called adaptationism in evolutionary biology (that is, a position holding natural selection to be ubiquitous and the most powerful as a mechanism of the evolution of life) and to discuss the problems that relate to it. To this end, I will first set forth the controversy having been waged on the legitimacy of adaptationism, originally initiated by Gould and Lewontin in 1978 and having been joined by mainstream neo-Darwinists ever since. Then I will put forward some framework for evaluating this controversy, namely, the idea of taking adaptationism to be a research program in Lakatos' sense. In the second section, I will review, somewhat critically, how adaptationistic thinking is exemplified in the sociobiological research program advocated by E. O. Wilson and his followers. In the third section, I will give some considerations on the possibility of the model of cultural evolution (memetics) as a complement to the one-sidedness of the genetically-biased sociobiological explanation of human culture.
Right : The objective of this article is to clarify the nature of the methodological position called adaptationism in evolutionary biology (that is, a position holding natural selection to be ubiquitous and the most powerful as a mechanism of the evolution of life) and to discuss the problems that relate to it. To this end, I will first set forth the controversy having been waged on the legitimacy of adaptationism, originally initiated by Gould and Lewontin in 1978 and having been joined by mainstream neo-Darwinists ever since. Then I will put forward some framework for evaluating this controversy, namely, the idea of taking adaptationism to be a research program in Lakatos' sense. In the second section, I will review, somewhat critically, how adaptationistic thinking is exemplified in the sociobiological research program advocated by E. O. Wilson and his followers. In the third section, I will give some considerations on the possibility of the model of cultural evolution (memetics) as a complement to the one-sidedness of the genetically-biased sociobiological explanation of human culture.

訂正日: 2009/07/23 訂正理由: - 訂正箇所: 引用文献情報訂正内容: Wrong : Dennett, D.(1995) Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life, New York: Simon & Schuster Inc.
Godfrey-Smith, P.(2001)"Three Kinds of Adaptationism," in:Adaptation and Optimality, ed. by S. Orzack and E. Sober, Camhridge U. P.
Gould, S. J., and Lewontin, R.(1978)"The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme," in:Proceeding of the Royal Society of London, vol. B 205.
Hull, D.(2001) Science and Selection: Essays on Biological Evolution and the Philosophy of Science, Cambridge U. P.
Kitcher, P. (1985) Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature, MIT Press.
Lumsden, C., and Wilson, E. O. (1981) Genes, Mind, and Culture, Harvard U. P.
Maynard Smith, J. (1978)"Optimization theory in evolution", reprinted in: Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology, ed. by E. Sober, MIT Press, 1994, pp. 91-118.
Rose, N.(1998)"Controversies in Meme Theory" in: Journal of Memetics-Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission, http://jom-emit. cfpm. org.
Sober, E.(1993) Philosophy of Biology, Boulder: Westview Press.
Sterelny, K., and Griffiths, P.(1999) Sex and Death: An Introduction to Philosophy of Biology, The University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, E. O. (1975) Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Harvard U. P.

Right : Dennett, D.(1995) Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life, New York: Simon & Schuster Inc.
Godfrey-Smith, P.(2001)"Three Kinds of Adaptationism," in:Adaptation and Optimality, ed. by S. Orzack and E. Sober, Camhridge U. P.
Gould, S. J., and Lewontin, R.(1978)"The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme," in:Proceeding of the Royal Society of London, vol. B 205.
Hull, D.(2001) Science and Selection: Essays on Biological Evolution and the Philosophy of Science, Cambridge U. P.
Kitcher, P. (1985) Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature, MIT Press.
Lumsden, C., and Wilson, E. O. (1981) Genes, Mind, and Culture, Harvard U. P.
Maynard Smith, J. (1978)"Optimization theory in evolution", reprinted in: Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology, ed. by E. Sober, MIT Press, 1994, pp. 91-118.
Rose, N.(1998)"Controversies in Meme Theory" in: Journal of Memetics-Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission, http://jom-emit.cfpm.org.
Sober, E.(1993) Philosophy of Biology, Boulder: Westview Press.
Sterelny, K., and Griffiths, P.(1999) Sex and Death: An Introduction to Philosophy of Biology, The University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, E. O. (1975) Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Harvard U. P.

訂正日: 2009/07/23 訂正理由: - 訂正箇所: PDFファイル訂正内容: -

抄録

The objective of this article is to clarify the nature of the methodological position called adaptationism in evolutionary biology (that is, a position holding natural selection to be ubiquitous and the most powerful as a mechanism of the evolution of life) and to discuss the problems that relate to it. To this end, I will first set forth the controversy having been waged on the legitimacy of adaptationism, originally initiated by Gould and Lewontin in 1978 and having been joined by mainstream neo-Darwinists ever since. Then I will put forward some framework for evaluating this controversy, namely, the idea of taking adaptationism to be a research program in Lakatos' sense. In the second section, I will review, somewhat critically, how adaptationistic thinking is exemplified in the sociobiological research program advocated by E. O. Wilson and his followers. In the third section, I will give some considerations on the possibility of the model of cultural evolution (memetics) as a complement to the one-sidedness of the genetically-biased sociobiological explanation of human culture.

責任著者(Corresponding author)

訂正情報

J-STAGEへの登録はこちら（無料）