Throughout the literature on Cultural Evolutionary Theory (CET) attention is drawn to the existence and significance of an analogy between biological phenomena and socio-cultural phenomena (the “biology-culture analogy”). Mesoudi (2017) seems to argue that it is the accuracy of the analogy, and the magnitude of accurate instances of this analogy at work, which provides warrant for an evolutionary approach to the study of socio-cultural phenomena, and, thus, for CET. An implication of this is that if there is evidence to suggest that the analogy is not accurate, or that there aren’t many cases where it is accurate, this would constitute evidence to reject an evolutionary approach to the study of socio-cultural phenomena. As such, opponents of CET raise objections highlighting the weakness of the biology-culture analogy. These objections, in turn, have standard replies in the literature that serve to reinforce the realism of the biology-culture analogy. Curiously, this situation would appear to support a position in the philosophy of social science called “Ontology Matters” (Lauer 2019). It is the view that social ontology can contribute to the empirical success of the social sciences (among which I include CET) by providing an accurate account of what there is in the domain of the social world which can be used to generate better explanations and/or predictions of social phenomena. If ontology matters, in this sense, perhaps this can help to clarify and resolve the dispute regarding the realism of the biology-culture analogy. In turn, perhaps this can help us determine what warrant there is for CET. However, I think this situation is indicative of severe confusion and misunderstanding as to the significance of the biology-culture analogy. This confusion is caused by inattention to two things. First, the useful distinction between it’s methodological, epistemological, and ontological significance. Second, the abstract (ontologically minimalist) nature of Darwinian evolution by natural selection. By drawing attention to these two things, I hope to take the sting out of, and deflate the significance of, disputes regarding the accuracy of the analogy, for both proponents and opponents of CET, as well as to bring into contact a classical dispute in the philosophy of social science with some relevant aspects of theoretical biology.

贯穿整个文化进化论（CET）的文献，都将注意力集中在生物学现象和社会文化现象之间的类比（“生物学-文化类比”）的存在和意义上。Mesoudi（2017）似乎认为，正是这种类比的准确性，以及这种类比在工作中的准确实例的数量，为研究社会文化现象，从而为英语四级考试提供了一种进化的方法。 。这暗示着，如果有证据表明这种类比是不正确的，或者在很多情况下它都不是正确的，那么这将构成证据，拒绝对社会文化现象进行研究的一种进化方法。因此，CET的反对者提出了反对意见，突出了生物文化比喻的弱点。这些反对意见反过来，在文献中有标准的答复，这些答复有助于加强生物学-文化类比的真实性。奇怪的是，这种情况似乎支持了社会科学哲学中的一个论题``本体论问题''（Lauer 2019）。有人认为，社会本体论可以通过提供对社会世界领域中存在的事物的准确描述，从而有助于社会科学的经验成功（其中包括CET），可以用来产生更好的解释和/或对社会现象的预测。如果从这个意义上说本体论很重要，也许这可以帮助澄清和解决关于生物学-文化类比的现实性的争议。反过来，这也许可以帮助我们确定CET的担保。然而，我认为这种情况表明生物学文化比喻的重要性严重混乱和误解。这种混乱是由于对两件事的疏忽引起的。首先，它是方法论，认识论和本体论意义之间的有用区别。第二，通过自然选择达尔文进化论的抽象（本体论上的极简主义）本质。通过提请注意这两件事，我希望消除对CET的支持者和反对者有关类推准确性的争端，并消除这些争端的重要性，并希望使有关CET的经典争端得以解决。社会科学哲学以及理论生物学的一些相关方面。方法论，认识论和本体论意义之间的有用区别。第二，通过自然选择达尔文进化论的抽象（本体论上的极简主义）本质。通过提请注意这两件事，我希望消除对CET的支持者和反对者有关类推准确性的争端，并消除这些争端的重要性，并希望使有关CET的经典争端得以解决。社会科学哲学以及理论生物学的一些相关方面。方法论，认识论和本体论意义之间的有用区别。第二，通过自然选择达尔文进化论的抽象（本体论上的极简主义）本质。通过提请注意这两件事，我希望消除对CET的支持者和反对者有关类推准确性的争端，并消除这些争端的重要性，并希望使有关CET的经典争端得以解决。社会科学哲学以及理论生物学的一些相关方面。