Synthesising arguments and the extended evolutionary synthesis
Introduction
Does evolutionary theory need ‘expanding’ or ‘extending’? Recently, a number of researchers have answered in the affirmative. Diagnosing deficits in what they label ‘standard’, ‘traditional’, ‘Neo-Darwinian’, or frequently, ‘Modern Synthesis’ evolutionary theory, these researchers argue for a different approach to evolutionary theory. These synthesising arguments are attempts at bringing about a broad reorganisation of the concepts, methods, explanatory standards, and structure of evolutionary research.1
The component parts of these synthesising arguments—novel concepts, methods, causal machinery, and evaluative standards—are objects of continuing philosophical attention.2 Here, however, I focus on how synthesising arguments in general are taken to motivate alternate theoretical frameworks. I do so by examining Kevin Laland and colleagues' ‘Extended Evolutionary Synthesis’ (hereafter; ‘EES’). Their synthesising argument holds that prevailing evolutionary research obscures important evolutionary phenomena; notably the plastic nature of organismic development, non-genetic sources of inheritance, and the active role of organisms in modifying evolutionary trajectories. Highlighting the causal complexity of evolutionary processes through work in evolutionary developmental biology, parental effects, and niche construction, EES proponents argue for a radically updated evolutionary theory.
My aim is to outline how synthesising arguments, like the one made by EES proponents, should be evaluated. As I show in more detail below, EES proponents and sceptics frequently apply a virtue-based approach. This takes synthesising arguments to motivate full-scale alternatives to prevailing practice—distinct packages of concepts, models, theoretical assumptions and explanatory standards. So understood, the respective merits of synthesising arguments can be compared to prevailing practice by contrasting the extent to which each displays theoretical virtues. Yet I will argue that this virtue-based approach is unsuited to evaluating the EES synthesising argument insofar as it obscures the pragmatic, empirical, and epistemological reasoning that motivates proponents. I argue instead for an agenda-based strategy. This evaluates synthesising arguments on the basis of their ability to mobilise empirically apt machinery in the pursuit of structured research agendas (Brigandt & Love, 2010; Love, 2010). Using the debate around niche construction as a case study, I show how adoption of the agenda-based approach provides a more illuminating evaluatory framework for the EES synthesising argument.
Section snippets
Challenging standard evolutionary theory
Developed across multiple publications and drawing on expertise from a number of empirical and philosophical literatures, the EES synthesising argument is a highly visible attempt at challenging the consensus practice of researchers in evolutionary biology (Kitcher, 1993; Buskell, 2019). And while many authors support the EES (e.g. Jablonka & Lamb, 2005; Müller, 2007; Müller & Pigliucci, 2010; Pigliucci, 2007, 2009), their views differ in both subtle and substantial ways. Here I focus on the
The virtue-based approach
EES proponents are adamant that their framework marks a departure from “‘business as usual’ science: it requires conceptual change.” (Laland et al., 2015, p. 10) As they see it, the concepts they put forward “are neither part of nor implied by the Modern Synthesis.” (Pigliucci, 2008, p. 75). And these are important to boot; these “additional evolutionary processes […] are more than just non-essential ‘add-ons’ and may be as important in shaping evolution as those recognized within the field
Comparing and evaluating the EES
So far, so irenic. Yet the agenda-based strategy does not reduce all disagreement to a frictionless pursuit of different research aims. There are opportunities for genuine conflict, but the agenda-based approach suggests that these will predominantly be local in character—relativized to particular research questions. Instead of a picture where concepts are evaluable on the basis of greater or lesser empirical content, an agenda-based approach evaluates empirical aptness in the pursuit of
Conclusion
Synthesising arguments are attempts at reorganising scientific research. Here I have argued that these attempts at reorganisation motivate different problem agendas—and that when these occur within the same domain of research, these can be usefully understood as different theory presentations—that employ distinct collections of concepts, evaluative frameworks, models, and assumptions. Looking at the role of niche construction in Laland and colleagues' synthesising argument for the EES, I've
Acknowledgements
Research leading to this publication was supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation (60501).
References (90)
Towards a new evolutionary synthesis
TREE
(2000)Evo-Devo and an expanding evolutionary synthesis: A genetic theory of morphological evolution
Cell
(2008)On evolutionary causes and evolutionary processes
Behavioural Processes
(2015)- et al.
The different morphs of Chthamalus anisopoma: A phenotypic response? Direct molecular evidence
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
(2000) The structure of evolutionary theory: A semantic approach
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
(1983)The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought: Roots of evo-devo
(2005)- et al.
Conceptualizing evolutionary novelty: Moving beyond definitional debates
Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution
(2010) What evolvability really is
The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
(2014)Reciprocal causation and the extended evolutionary synthesis
Biological Theory
(2019)Common problems and cooperative solutions: Organizational activity in evolutionary studies, 1936 - 1947
Isis
(1993)
Rethinking the synthesis period in evolutionary studies
Journal of the History of Biology
Endless forms most beautiful: The new science of evo devo
The sources of adaptive variation
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
The extended phenotype: The gene as the unit of selection
Darwinism evolving: Systems dynamics and the genealogy of natural selection
“Reciprocal causation and the proximate–ultimate distinction
Biology and Philosophy
The extended evolutionary synthesis and the role of soft inheritance in evolution
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Hierarchy theory of evolution and the extended evolutionary synthesis: Some epistemic bridges, some conceptual rifts
Evolutionary Biology
“Why Gupta et al.’s Critique of Niche Construction Theory Is Off Target
Journal of Genetics
Ultimate explanations concern the adaptive rationale for organism design
Biology and Philosophy
Modelling in behavioural ecology
“Presentations and the status of theories.” PSA
Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association
Niche construction in evolutionary theory: The construction of an academic niche?
Journal of Genetics
Feldman et Al. Do protest too much, we think
Journal of Genetics
Niche construction on environmental gradients: The formation of fitness valley and stratified genotypic distributions
PLoS One
A single amino acid mutation contributes to adaptive beach mice color pattern
Science
Niche construction and polymorphism maintenance in metapopulations
Ecological Research
Evolution in four dimensions: Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life
Explanatory unification
Philosophy of Science
Explanatory unification and the causal structure of the world
The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions
The structure of scientific revolutions
The essential tension
Evolutionary developmental perspective for the origin of turtles: The folding theory for the shell based on the developmental nature of the carapacial ridge
Evolution and Development
Ecological and evolutionary consequences of niche construction for its agent
Ecology Letters
Darwin's unfinished symphony: How culture made the human mind
“Evolution unleashed” aeon
Seven reasons (not) to neglect niche construction
Evolution
“Cause and effect in biology revisited: Is mayr's proximate-ultimate dichotomy still useful?
Science
Niche construction, sources of selection and trait coevolution
Interface Focus
The evolutionary consequences of niche construction: A theoretical investigation using two-locus theory
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
Evolutionary consequences of niche construction and their implications for ecology
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
More on how and why: Cause and effect in biology revisited
Biology and Philosophy
More on how and why: A response to commentaries
Biology and Philosophy
Cited by (4)
Digital capitalism and new institutionalism
2023, Digital Capitalism and New InstitutionalismKant and Biological Theory
2023, Studies in German IdealismThe Structure of Evolutionary Theory: Beyond Neo-Darwinism, Neo-Lamarckism and Biased Historical Narratives About the Modern Synthesis
2023, Evolutionary Biology - New Perspectives on its DevelopmentCausation
2021, Evolutionary Biology - New Perspectives on its Development