Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Plurality of Evolutionary Worldviews

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Biosemiotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Evolutionary biologists, evolutionary epistemologists, and biosemioticians have demonstrated that organisms not merely adapt to an external world, but that they actively construct their environmental, sociocultural, and cognitive niches. Denis Noble demonstrates that such is no different for those organisms that engage in science, and he lays bare several crucial assumptions that define the scientific dogmas and practices of evolutionary biology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Campbell, D. T. (1974a). Evolutionary epistemology. In P. A. Schlipp (Ed.), The philosophy of Karl Popper (Vol. I, pp. 413–459). Chicago: La Salle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. (1974b). Downward causation in hierarchically organized biological systems. In F. J. Ayala & T. Dobzhansky (Eds.), Studies in the philosophy of biology: Reduction and related problems (pp. 179–186). New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. (1844) Vestiges of the natural history of creation. London: W and R Chambers.

  • Wilson, D. S., & Sober, E. (1989). Reviving the superorganism. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 136(3), 337–356.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species. London: John Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1982). Replicators and vehicles. In N. R. Brandon & R. M. Burian (Eds.), Genes, organisms, populations (pp. 161–179). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egerton, F. N. (2015). History of ecological sciences, part 52: Symbiosis studies. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 96, 80–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1966). Les mots et les choses. Paris: Editions Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism. Bristol: The Palmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gontier, N., & Bradie, M. (2017). Acquiring knowledge on species-specific biorealities: The applied evolutionary epistemological approach. In R. Joyce (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of evolution and philosophy (pp. 136–152). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gontier, N. (2016). Symbiosis, history of. In R. L. Kliman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evolutionary biology (pp. 272–281). Oxford: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gontier, N. (2018). On how epistemology and ontology converge through evolution: The applied evolutionary epistemological approach. In S. Wuppuluri & F. A. Doria (Eds.), The map and the territory (pp. 533–569). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The spandrels of san Marco and the panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 205(1161), 581–598.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, R., Margulis, L., & Berlanga, M. (2013). Symbiogenesis: The holobiont as a unit of evolution. International Microbiology, 16(3), 133–143.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haeckel, E. (1866). Generelle Morphologie der Organismen: Allgemeine Grundzüge der organischen Formen-Wissenschaft, mechanisch begründet durch die von Charles Darwin reformirte Descendenz-Theorie (Vol. 2). Berlin: Georg Reimer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hahlweg, K., & Hooker, C. (Eds.). (1989). Issues in evolutionary epistemology. New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W. D. (1964a). The genetical evolution of social behavior I. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 1–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W. D. (1964b). The genetical evolution of social behavior II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 17–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W. D. (1964c). The evolution of social behavior. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1, 295–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harting, P. (1862). De bouwkunst der dieren: Een boek voor allen, die de natuur liefhebben. Groningen: Erven C.M. van Bolhuis Hoitsema.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, M. W., & Saunders, P. T. (1979). Beyond neo-Darwinism: An epigenetic approach to evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 78, 573–591.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hutton, J. (1788). Theory of the earth: Or an investigation of the laws observable in the composition, dissolution, and restoration of land upon the globe. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1(2), 209–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. New York: Longmans, Green and Co..

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1909). A pluralistic universe. New York: Longmans, Green and Co..

    Google Scholar 

  • Kropotkin, P. (1902). Mutual aid: A factor of evolution. New York: McClure Phillips a Co..

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull, K., Emmeche, C., & Favareau, D. (2011). Biosemiotic research questions. In C. Emmeche & K. Kull (Eds.), Towards a semiotic biology (pp. 67–90). London: Imperial College Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laland, K., Kumm, J., & Feldman, M. (1995). Gene-culture co-evolutionary theory. Current Anthropology, 36(1), 131–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levins, R., & Lewontin, R. (1985). The dialectical biologist. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, R. (1983). The organism as subject and object of evolution. Scientia, 188, 65–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, K. (1941). Kant's Lehre vom Apriorischen im Lichte gegenwärtiger Biologie. Blätter für Deutsche Philosophie, 15, 94–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, K. (1958). The evolution of behavior. Scientific American, 199(6), 67–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, K. (1977). Behind the mirror: A search for a natural history of human knowledge. New York: Harcourt Trade Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovelock, J. E., & Margulis, L. (1974). Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: The Gaia hypothesis. Tellus, Series A, Stockholm: International Meteorological Institute, 26(1–2), 2–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Magnani, L. (2017). The abductive structure of scientific creativity: An essay on the ecology of cognition. Cham: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Malthus, T. R. (1798). An essay on the principle of population. London: J. Johnson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margulis, L. (1998). The symbiotic planet: A new look at evolution. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Company.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J. (2000). The concept of information in biology. Philosophy of Science, 67(2), 177–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. (1963). Populations, species, and evolution. Belknap: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McClintock, B. (1950). The origin and behavior of mutable loci in maize. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, USA, 36, 344–355.

  • Noble, D. (2012). A theory of biological relativity. Interface Focus, 2, 55–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Odling-Smee, F. J. (1988). Niche constructing phenotypes. In H. Plotkin (Ed.), The role of behavior in evolution (pp. 73–132). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okasha, S. (2006). Evolution and the levels of selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pattee, H. H. (Ed.). (1973). Hierarchy theory: The challenge of complex systems. New York: Braziller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan and Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebeok, T. A. (1994). Signs: An introduction to semiotics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Chicago: The University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, J. A. (2017). Biological action in read-write genome evolution. Interface Focus, 7, 20160115.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, J. (2011). Evolution: A view from the 21st century. Upper Saddle River: FT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharov, A. A., & Vehkavaara, T. (2015). Protosemiosis: Agency with reduced representation capacity. Biosemiotics, 8(1), 103–123.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity: Hierarchic systems. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106, 467–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1981). Selection by consequences. Science, 213, 501–504.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (2 volumes). London: Methuen & Co., Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, H. (1864). Principles of biology (Vol. 1). Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tëmkin, I., & Eldredge, N. (2015). Networks and hierarchies: Approaching complexity in evolutionary theory. In E. Serrelli & N. Gontier (Eds.), Macroevolution (pp. 183–226). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tennyson, L. A. (1850). In memorial a.H.H. London: Edward Moxon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschifft für Tierpsychologie, 20, 410–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uexküll, J. von. (1937). The new concept of Umwelt: A link between science and the humanities. Semiotica, 134 1/4 (2001), 111–23.

  • Van Beneden, P. J. (1873). Un mot sur la vie sociale des animaux inférieurs. Bulletin de l'Académie Royale de Belgique, 2(36), 779–796.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Beneden, P.J. (1875). Les commensaux et les parasites dans le règne animal. Paris : Bibliothèque scientifique internationale.

  • Waddington, C. H. (1942). Canalization of development and the inheritance of acquired characters. Nature, 150(3811), 563–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, W. (2020). Information and meaning. Oxford research encyclopedia of literature. https://oxfordre.com/literature/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.001.0001/acrefore-9780190201098-e-969.

  • Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics: Or control and communication in the animal and the machine. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. S., & Wilson, E. O. (2008). Evolution 'for the good of the group'. American Scientist, 96(5), 380–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. S., & Sober, E. (1994). Reintroducing group selection to the human behavioral sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17(4), 585–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wuketits, F. M. (2006). Evolutionary epistemology: The non-adaptationist approach. In N. Gontier, J. P. Van Bendegem, & D. Aerts (Eds.), Evolutionary epistemology, language and culture (pp. 33–46). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne-Edwards, V. C. (1962). Animal dispersion in relation to social behaviour. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne-Edwards, V. C. (1986). Evolution through group selection. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Cordial thanks to Yogi Hale Hendlin and Alexei Sharov for inviting me to contribute this comment.

Funding

Written with the financial support of the Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa (Faculty of Science of the University of Lisbon) and FCT, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology), Grant ID DL57/2016/CP1479/CT0066 and Project IDs: UID/FIL/00678/2019 and UIDB/00678/2020.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Applied Evolutionary Epistemology Lab & Centro de Filosofia das Ciências, Departamento de História e Filosofia das Ciências, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, 1749-016, Lisbon, Portugal

    Nathalie Gontier

Authors
  1. Nathalie Gontier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gontier, N. The Plurality of Evolutionary Worldviews. Biosemiotics 14, 35–40 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09410-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09410-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation