Year: 2017
Type: article
Abstract: I identify a controversial hypothesis in evolutionary biology called the plasticity-first hypothesis. I argue that the plasticity-first hypothesis is underdetermined and that the most popular means of studying the plasticity-first hypothesis are insufficient to confirm or disconfirm it. I offer a strategy for overcoming this problem. Researchers need to develop a richer middle-range theory of plasticity-first evolution that allows them to identify distinctive empirical traces of the hypothesis. They can then use those traces to discriminate between rival explanations of evolutionary episodes. The best tools for developing such a middle-range theory are experimental evolution and formal modelling. 1 Introduction2 The Plasticity-First Hypothesis and Its Rivals3 Evidential Disagreements 3.1 Direct and indirect evidence 3.2 Burden of proof4 The Importance of Middle-Range Theory 4.1 Direct observation 4.2 Ancestral–descendant comparisons5 Adjusting Methodological Norms 5.1 Formal modelling and experimental evolution 5.2 An example: selective sweeps 6 Conclusion
DOI: 10.1093/bjps/axx038
Author: Karen Kovaka
Institution: University of Pennsylvania
Language: English
Subfield: History and Philosophy of Science
Field: Arts and Humanities
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W2547326175