Evolutionary epistemology (EE) has experienced a continuous rise over the last decades. Important new theoretical considerations and novel empirical findings have been integrated into the existing framework (Gontier and Bradie 2018). In this paper, I would like to suggest three lines of research that I believe will significantly contribute to further advance EE: (1) ontogenetic considerations, (2) key ideas from cognitive biology, and (3) the framework of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. (1) EE, in particular the program of the evolution of epistemological mechanisms (EEM), seeks to provide a phylogenetic account of the generation of cognitive processes underlying knowledge creation (Bradie and Harms 2017). Traditionally, EE and EEM have been oriented towards an account of evolutionary theory that mainly drew from the tenets of the Modern Synthesis. The Modern Synthesis largely dismisses ontogenetic processes and considers them irrelevant for evolutionary explanations. If anything, the role of development in evolution is believed to be that of a constraint. There is, however, ample evidence for a tight intertwinement of developmental and evolutionary processes. Organisms employ their cognitive apparatus to interact with the environment in order to achieve a fully functioning perceptual and cognitive nervous system. Also, ontogeny provides generative potentials to enable variations that natural selection can act upon. EEM’s agenda may, therefore, strongly benefit from bringing together ontogenetic and phylogenetic approaches. To grapple with this challenge, an alternative vision of the evolutionary theory termed Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (Pigliucci and Muller 2010) could be used. This extended evolutionary theory explores relationships between the processes of individual development and phenotypic change during evolution (i.e., EvoDevo) and can provide a more suitable framework for EEM to draw from. (2) In recent years, cognitive biology has gained momentum as an independent research field. Cognitive biology builds on the concepts of EEM and understands knowledge as a biogenic phenomenon. Its main objective is also the formulation of substantiated interrelations between cognition and evolution but it focuses on cognitive functionality at all levels of biological organization. It thus employs a “vertical” approach that encompasses nested hierarchies which span from single molecules, cells, and tissues to the organismal level, communities, and societies. In contrast to cognitive biology, EEM is here understood to adopt a “horizontal” approach that focuses on phylogenetic explanations of cognition and knowledge acquisition (Kovac 2006). Linking EEM with the key ideas of cognitive biology could make EEM’s research program stronger as it can more easily accommodate phylogenetic and ontogenetic questions within a hierarchical, multilevel perspective. This is of particular importance for a more comprehensive account of cognition since living systems are subject to context-dependent causal influences from different organizational levels. (3) In addition to EEM, there is a second program of EE. This program has been labeled evolutionary epistemology of theories (EET) and understands the increase in human knowledge, such as scientific theories, as naturalistic accounts of evolution. Both, EEM and EET initially drew from the core concepts of the Modern Synthesis. Several scholars have severely criticized the analogies made between EET and the Neo-Darwinian key processes of evolution. In particular processes of random mutation, the rate of variation, natural selection as the unique driving force, and the adaptationist agenda are believed to reveal disanalogies. In contrast to the Modern Synthesis, the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis not only recognizes developmental processes but also ecological interactions and systems dynamics as well as social and cultural evolutionary reciprocity as important evolutionary processes. Concepts of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis are therefore expected to be more fruitful for re-conceptualizing parallels between scientific theorizing and biological evolution.

中文翻译：

---

在扩展进化综合的框架内融合进化认识论和认知生物学的概念

在过去的几十年里，进化认识论 (EE) 经历了持续的增长。重要的新理论考虑和新的实证研究结果已被整合到现有框架中（Gontier 和 Bradie 2018）。在本文中，我想提出三个我认为将对进一步推进 EE 做出重大贡献的研究方向：(1) 个体遗传学考虑，(2) 认知生物学的关键思想，以及 (3) 扩展进化综合的框架. (1) EE，特别是认识论机制 (EEM) 的进化计划，旨在提供知识创造基础认知过程生成的系统发育说明（Bradie 和 Harms 2017）。传统上，EE 和 EEM 的方向是对进化理论的解释，该理论主要借鉴了现代综合的原则。现代综合在很大程度上驳回了个体发育过程，并认为它们与进化解释无关。如果有的话，发展在进化中的作用被认为是一种约束。然而，有充分的证据表明发育和进化过程紧密交织在一起。生物体利用它们的认知装置与环境相互作用，以实现功能齐全的感知和认知神经系统。此外，个体发育提供了生成潜力，以实现自然选择可以作用的变异。因此，EEM 的议程可能会极大地受益于将个体发生学和系统发生学方法结合起来。为了应对这一挑战，可以使用称为扩展进化综合（Pigliucci and Muller 2010）的进化理论的另一种观点。这种扩展的进化理论探索了个体发展过程与进化过程中的表型变化（即 EvoDevo）之间的关系，并且可以为 EEM 提供一个更合适的框架来借鉴。(2) 近年来，认知生物学作为一个独立的研究领域得到了发展。认知生物学建立在 EEM 的概念之上，并将知识理解为一种生物现象。它的主要目标也是在认知和进化之间建立经证实的相互关系，但它侧重于生物组织各个层次的认知功能。因此，它采用了一种“垂直”方法，该方法涵盖了从单个分子、细胞、和组织到有机体水平、社区和社会。与认知生物学相反，EEM 在这里被理解为采用“水平”方法，该方法侧重于认知和知识获取的系统发育解释（Kovac 2006）。将 EEM 与认知生物学的关键思想联系起来可以使 EEM 的研究计划更强大，因为它可以更容易地在分层、多层次的视角内解决系统发育和个体发育问题。这对于更全面的认知解释尤其重要，因为生命系统受到来自不同组织级别的依赖于上下文的因果影响。(3) 除了EEM，还有EE的第二个项目。该程序已被标记为理论的进化认识论（EET），并了解人类知识的增长，比如科学理论，作为自然主义的进化论。EEM 和 EET 最初都来自现代​​综合的核心概念。一些学者严厉批评了 EET 与新达尔文进化论关键过程之间的类比。在随机突变的特定过程中，变异率、作为独特驱动力的自然选择以及适应主义议程被认为揭示了不相似之处。与现代综合相比，扩展进化综合不仅承认发展过程，而且将生态相互作用和系统动态以及社会和文化进化互惠视为重要的进化过程。