Introducción de Michael Ruse: “La teoría darwiniana de la evolución".

In this paper I consider the problem of man's evolution - in particular the evolutionary problems raised when we consider man as a cultural animal as well as a biological one. I argue that any adequate cultural evolutionary theory must have the notion of ‘adaptation’ as a central concept, where this must be construed in a fairly literal (biological) sense, that is as something which aids its possessors (i.e. men) to survive and reproduce. I argue against theories which treat adaptation (...) in a metaphorical sense, particularly those speaking of the ‘adaptation’ of cultures without reference to men. Iron tools per se are not better adapted than bronze tools - it is the men with iron tools who are better adapted than men with bronze tools. I show that by taking the approach that I do, one can apply at once in a fruitful manner some conclusions of biological evolutionary theory directly to men and their cultures. I conclude with a brief discussion of methodological issues raised by cultural evolutionary theories, particularly those of confirmation and falsification. (shrink)

La teoría de la evolución por selección natural de Charles Darwin, que explica las distribuciones geográficas y el registro fósil, se considera, con razón, una de las teorías científicas más importantes de todos los tiempos, y ocupa su lugar junto con la teoría de la atracción gravitacional de Isaac Newton, que explica la imagen heliocéntrica del mundo de Copérnico. Sin embargo, existe una tendencia a pensar que el trabajo de Darwin está acabado. Que pertenece más a la historia victoriana que (...) a algo que tenga una relevancia social crucial en la actualidad. Este ensayo evidencia cuán equivocada es esa suposición. A través de una serie de casos históricos (extranjeros, clase social, orientación sexual y mujeres), se demuestra que el darwinismo es tan vibrante e importante hoy como lo era cuando Darwin era joven. Es una herramienta esencial para analizar y resolver algunos de los problemas sociales más importantes y apremiantes que enfrentamos en el siglo XXI. (shrink)

Two of the most influential evaluations of Charles Lyell's geological ideas were those of the philosophers of science, John F. W. Herschel and William Whewell. In this paper I shall argue that the great difference between these evaluations—whereas Herschel was fundamentally sympathetic to Lyell's geologizing, Whewell was fundamentally opposed—is a function of the fact that Herschel was an empiricist and Whewell a rationalist. For convenience, I shall structure the discussion around the three key elements in Lyell's approach to geology. First, (...) he was anactualist: he wanted to explain past geological phenomena in terms of causes of the kind that are operating at present. Second, he was auniformitarian: he wanted to explain only in terms of causes of the degree operating at present; that is, he wanted to avoid ‘catastrophes’. Third, as a geologist he saw the earth as being in asteady-state, in which all periods are essentially similar to one another. Because they will prove important, I draw attention also to two major features of Lyell's programme. First, there is his theory of climate, which suggests, ‘without help from a comet’, that earthly temperature fluctuations are primarily a function of the constantly changing distribution of land and sea. Clearly this theory is actualistic, for it is based on such present phenomena as the Gulf Stream; it is also uniformitarian and supports a steady-state world picture. Second, there is Lyell's denial that the fossil record is progressive, his criticism of Lamarckian evolutionism, ostensibly on the grounds that modern evidence is against it (i.e. it fails actualistically), and his rather veiled claim that the origins of species will nevertheless prove in some way natural, that is, subject to causes falling beneath lawlike regularities in principle discernible by us. (shrink)

La ética evolutiva tiene (merecidamente) mala reputación. Sin embargo, no deberíamos permanecer prisioneros de nuestro pasado. Los avances recientes en biología evolutiva darwiniana allanan el camino para un vínculo entre ciencia y moral que es más modesto pero, al mismo tiempo, más profundo que las excursiones anteriores en esta dirección. Al mismo tiempo, no hay necesidad de repudiar las ideas de los grandes filósofos del pasado, particularmente de David Hume. De ahí que los orígenes simiescos de los seres humanos realmente (...) importan. La pregunta no es si acaso la evolución debería relacionarse con la ética, sino cómo. Nosotros los seres humanos somos monos modificados, no la creación favorecida de un Dios benévolo, en el sexto día. Por lo tanto, ha llegado el momento de hacernos cargo de nuestra naturaleza animal, particularmente en relación con nuestra interacción con los demás. Es cierto que la llamada ética evolutiva tiene mala reputación. Sin embargo, la pregunta no es si la evolución está conectada con la ética, sino cómo. Afortunadamente, gracias a los avances recientes en las ciencias biológicas, el camino se está volviendo más claro. Comienzo esta discusión con una breve introducción histórica al tema. Luego voy al núcleo de mi caso científico y filosófico. Concluyo retomando algunas objeciones centrales. (shrink)

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection, explaining geographical distributions and the fossil record, is rightly regarded as one of the greatest scientific theories of all time, taking its place alongside Isaac Newton’s theory of gravitational attraction, explaining the Copernican heliocentric world picture. There is, however, a tendency to think that Darwin’s work is finished. It belongs to Victorian history rather than as something that has crucial social relevance today. This essay shows how mistaken it is to make this (...) assumption. Through a series of case histories―foreigners, class, sexual orientation, and women―Darwinism is shown to be as vibrant and important today as it was when Darwin was young. It is an essential tool for analyzing and solving some of the biggest and most pressing social issues facing us in the twenty-first century. (shrink)

Las explicaciones teleológicas en biología evolutiva, desde Cuvier hasta el presente (y hacia el futuro), dependen de la metáfora del ‘diseño’ para conservar su poder heurístico y su fertilidad predictiva.

Preface 9 PART I: RELIGIOUS, SCIENTIFIC, AND PHILOSOPHICAL BACKGROUND Introduction to Part I 19 1. The Bible 27 2. Natural Theology 33 William Paley 3. On the Origin of Species 38 Charles Darwin 4. Objections to Mr. Darwin’s Theory of the Origin of Species 65 Adam Sedgwick 5. The Origin of Species 73 Thomas H. Huxley 6. What Is Darwinism? 82 Charles Hodge 7. Darwinism as a Metaphysical Research Program 105 Karl Popper 8. Karl Popper’s Philosophy of Biology 116 (...) class='Hi'>Michael Ruse 9. Human Nature: One Evolutionist’s View 136 Francisco Ayala 10. Universal Darwinism 158 Richard Dawkins PART II: CREATION SCIENCE AND THE McLEAN CASE Introduction to Part II 187 11. The Creationists 192 Ronald L. Numbers 12. Creation, Evolution, and the Historical Evidence 231 Duane T. Gish 13. Witness Testimony Sheet: McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 253 Michael Ruse 14. United States District Court Opinion: McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 279 Judge William R. Overton 15. The Demise of the Demarcation Problem 312 Larry Laudan 16. Science at the BarùCauses for Concern 331 Larry Laudan 17. Pro Judice 337 Michael Ruse 18. More on Creationism 345 Larry Laudan 19. Commentary: Philosophers at the BarùSome Reasons for Restraint 350 Barry R. Gross PART III: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM AND THE KITZMILLER CASE Introduction to Part III 369 20. But Isn’t It Creationism? The Beginnings of "Intelligent Design" in the Midst of the Arkansas and Louisiana Litigation 377 Nick Matzke 21. What Is Darwinism? 414 Phillip E. Johnson 22. Is It Science Yet? Intelligent Design, Creationism, and the Constitution 426 Matthew Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey 23. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Expert Witness Testimony 434 Michael Behe 24. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Expert Report 456 Robert T. Pennock 25. A Step toward the Legalization of Science Studies 485 Steve Fuller 26. What Is Wrong with Intelligent Design? 495 Elliott Sober 27. United States District Court Memorandum Opinion: Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. 506 Judge John E. Jones II 28. Can’t Philosophers Tell the Difference between Science and Religion? Demarcation Revisited 536 Robert T. Pennock. (shrink)

These remarks preface two volumes consisting of the proceedings of the Third International Conference on the History and Philosophy of Science of the International Union of History and Philosophy of Science. The conference was held under the auspices of the Union, The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and the Canadian Society for History and Philosophy of Science. The meetings took place in Montreal, Canada, 25-29 August 1980, with Concordia University as host institution. The program of the conference (...) was arranged by a Joint Commission of the International Union of History and Philosophy of Science consisting of Robert E. Butts (Canada), John Murdoch (U. S. A. ), Vladimir Kirsanov (U. S. S. R. ), and Paul Weingartner (Austria). The Local Arrangements Committee consisted of Stanley G. French, Chair (Concordia), Michel Paradis, treasurer (McGill), Fran~ois Duchesneau (Universite de Montreal), Robert Nadeau (Universite du Quebec it Montreal), and William Shea (McGill University). Both committees are indebted to Dr. G. R. Paterson, then President of the Canadian Society for History and Philosophy of Science, who shared his expertise in many ways. Dr. French and his staff worked diligently and efficiently on behalf of all participants. The city of Montreal was, as always, the subtle mixture of extravagance, charm, warmth and excitement that retains her status as the jewel of Canadian cities. The funding of major international conferences is always a problem. (shrink)

There has been much attention devoted in recent years to the question of whether our moral principles can be related to our biological nature. This collection of new essays focuses on the connection between biology, in particular evolutionary biology, and foundational questions in ethics. The book asks such questions as whether humans are innately selfish, and whether there are particular facets of human nature that bear directly on social practices. The volume is organised historically beginning with Aristotle and covering such (...) major figures as Hume and Darwin down to the present and the work of Harvard sociobiologist, E. O. Wilson. This is the first book to offer this historical perspective on the relation of biology and ethics, and has been written by some of the leading figures in the history and philosophy of science, whose work stands very much at the cutting edge of these disciplines. (shrink)

O objetivo central do trabalho é analisar a posição evolucionista proposta por Michael Ruse a respeito da ética no âmbito de primeira e de segunda ordem. Para cumprir com este objetivo, inicialmente distinguiremos a posição evolucionista de Ruse, de fundamentação darwiniana, com a posição evolucionista clássica, de fundamentação spenceriana. Mostraremos como Ruse inicialmente reformula a ética evolucionista spenceriana, tornando o âmbito da ética substantiva descritivo, e não mais prescritivo, a partir da compreensão correta do conceito de (...) altruísmo. No âmbito da metaética, mostraremos como Ruse desenvolve uma posição evolucionista sem recair nos problemas clássicos da lei de Hume e da falácia naturalista. Por fim, mostraremos que a metaética darwiniana de Ruse pode ser considerada como um tipo de teoria do erro. Concluiremos que a proposta de ética e metaética darwiniana de Ruse trazem grandes avanços para a discussão, fortalecendo a importância da biologia na investigação tradicionalmente filosófica. (shrink)

A partir de la crítica de Michael Ruse a la concepción etiológica de la función biológica desarrollada por Larry Wright, según la cual esta explicación resulta incompleta dado que no aborda el trasfondo cultural y valorativo que hace posible la explicación teleológica, me propongo responder a una objeción a la concepción etiológica según la cual el cambio de función constituye una anomalía para ella. Mi argumento une las ideas de Ruse acerca de la relevancia de los valores (...) en la explicación teleológica con una reinterpretación, en un contexto filogenético hipotético, de un contra-ejemplo putativo para la función como efecto seleccionado. Mi conclusión es que no hay razones para abandonar, al menos para este caso, la concepción etiológica sobre la base de objeciones acerca de su poder explicativo del cambio de función. (shrink)

Contemporary biologists generally agree with E. O. Wilson’s claim that “reduction is the traditional instrument of scientific analysis.” This is certainly true of Michael Ruse, who has attempted to provide a Darwinian account of human scientific knowledge in terms of epigenetic rules. Such an account depends on the characterization of natural objects as the chance concatenations of material elements, making natural form an effect rather than a cause of the object. This characterization, however, can be shown to be (...) false in that it is self-refuting in its exclusion of formal cause. The retorsive argument for formal cause dialectically shows that any attempt to explain a natural object depends on the identification of form as the cause of the intelligibility of the object. It follows that Darwinian explanations of the products of human culture, such as science, cannot consistently treat form as an effect rather than a cause. (shrink)

En este artículo se analizan los cambios en la postura del filósofo Michael Ruse en relación con el problema de la naturaleza y legitimidad de la teleología en la Biología. A tal fin, se comparan los análisis de Ruse sobre este tema en su libro Filosofía de la Biología de 1973 con aquellos posteriores a 1989. Los cambios en la perspectiva de Ruse sobre este tema se relacionan con las corrientes dominantes en Filosofía de la Ciencia (...) en las distintas épocas analizadas. Los últimos análisis se centran en entender la teleología como ligada a la metáfora del diseño, por lo que se presta especial atención al rol de dicha metáfora en la Biología. Finalmente, se discute el valor de los análisis de Ruse para Biólogos y profesores de Biología. (shrink)

In this paper I trace Michael Ruse's Booknotes from the first volumeof Biology and Philosophy in 1986 to the present. I deal withboth the style and the content of these booknotes. Ruse paid specialattention to authors outside of the traditional English axis as wellas to feminist writers. He complained that too much attention wasbeing paid to certain topics (e.g., evolutionary ethics, evolutionaryepistemology, the species problem and reduction) while other, moreimportant topics were all but ignored (e.g., natural selection,population (...) genetics, levels of selection and extraterrestrial life).He also dealt with the Darwin Industry. Creationism, his love-haterelationships with several authors and his undiluted love of CharlesDickens. (shrink)

El tema de las relaciones entre ciencia y religión es central en la obra de Ruse. No se trata de una mera curiosidad o de una cuestión tratada tangencialmente, sino que está en el corazón de sus preocupaciones intelectuales e incluso vitales (sección 1). Hay que señalar, además, que la actividad de Ruse coincide con una cierta encrucijada histórica, en la cual se enfrentan dos posiciones extremas y mutuamente hostiles, el creacionismo, por una parte, y el nuevo ateísmo, (...) por otra (sección 2). Para entender las propuestas respetuosas, matizadas y constructivas que hace Ruse, hay que situarlas en un marco teórico complejo, donde sean posibles actitudes menos burdas que el simple enfrentamiento (sección 3). Quizá la fórmula que mejor recoge las ideas de Ruse en este dominio sea la de “existencialismo darwinista”, como él mismo propone (sección 4). Por último, presentaré un resumen conclusivo de lo hallado (sección 5). (shrink)

La perspectiva evolutiva de Michael Ruse sobre la moral se caracteriza por combinar dos aspectos aparentemente contradictorios: por un lado, un escepticismo metaético y, por otro lado, una defensa de la ética normativa. Siguiendo la distinción de Daniel Dennett entre explicaciones con ‘ganchos celestiales’, que apelan a entidades sobrenaturales, y con ‘grúas’, que se adecúan a la teoría de la evolución por selección natural, la propuesta de Ruse busca llevar la comprensión de la ética y de la (...) metaética en clave de ‘grúa’ hasta sus últimas consecuencias. Ahora bien, la propuesta ruseana parece llegar a una aporía. Esto porque si bien en su propuesta se plantea una defensa de la ética normativa, Ruse le adjudica un rol destacado a las ‘disposiciones mentales innatas’ (vinculadas con piezas de psicología como las intuiciones o emociones morales), quedando todavía, aparentemente, un cabo suelto de su filosofía: cómo capturar, sin diluir, o sin reducir al mínimo, la normatividad de dicha ética (que el autor llama a veces ‘sustantiva’ en contraste con la metaética). En este artículo nos proponemos conservar la comprensión de la moral en clave de ‘grúa’ propuesta por Ruse pero, al mismo tiempo, recuperar una noción de razonamiento moral con mayor injerencia en la normatividad ética. Para ello, recurriremos al concepto de ‘metacognición’ que, una vez definido, nos permitirá poner en evidencia de qué manera el conocimiento de los procesos y productos cognitivos propios puede jugar un papel en el razonamiento moral destinado a inhibir disposiciones tendencialmente egoístas. (shrink)

Controversy and activism have long been linked to the subject of primate research. Even in the midst of raging ethical debates surrounding fertility treatments, genetically modified foods and stem-cell research, there has been no reduction in the campaigns of activists worldwide. Plying their trade of intimidation aimed at ending biomedical experimentation in all animals, they have succeeded in creating an environment where research institutions, often painted as guilty until proven innocent, have avoided addressing the issue for fear of becoming targets. (...) One area of intense debate is the use of primates in stroke research. Despite the fact that stroke kills more people each year than AIDS and malaria, and less than 5% of patients are candidates for current therapies, there is significant opposition to primate stroke research. A balanced examination of the ethics of primate stroke research is thus of broad interest to all areas of biomedical research. (shrink)

Radical ecology typically brings to mind media images of ecological activists standing before loggers' saws, staging anti-nuclear marches, and confronting polluters on the high seas. Yet for more than twenty years, the activities of organizations such as the Greens and Earth First! have been influenced by a diverse, less-publicized group of radical ecological philosophers. It is their work—the philosophical underpinnings of the radical ecological movement—that is the subject of _Contesting Earth's Future_. The book offers a much-needed, balanced appraisal of radical (...) ecology's principles, goals, and limitations. Michael Zimmerman critically examines the movement's three major branches—deep ecology, social ecology, and ecofeminism. He also situates radical ecology within the complex cultural and political terrain of the late twentieth century, showing its relation to Martin Heidegger's anti-technological thought, 1960s counterculturalism, and contemporary theories of poststructuralism and postmodernity. An early and influential ecological thinker, Zimmerman is uniquely qualified to provide a broad overview of radical environmentalism and delineate its various schools of thought. He clearly describes their defining arguments and internecine disputes, among them the charge that deep ecology is an anti-modern, proto-fascist ideology. Reflecting both the movement's promise and its dangers, this book is essential reading for all those concerned with the worldwide ecological crisis. (shrink)

This study examined the role of key causal analysis strategies in forecasting and ethical decision-making. Undergraduate participants took on the role of the key actor in several ethical problems and were asked to identify and analyze the causes, forecast potential outcomes, and make a decision about each problem. Time pressure and analytic mindset were manipulated while participants worked through these problems. The results indicated that forecast quality was associated with decision ethicality, and the identification of the critical causes of the (...) problem was associated with both higher quality forecasts and higher ethicality of decisions. Neither time pressure nor analytic mindset impacted forecasts or ethicality of decisions. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed. (shrink)

Constellations, Volume 29, Issue 2, Page 131-145, June 2022.

Quantum field theories containing massless particles are divergent not just in the ultraviolet but also in the infrared. Infrared divergences are typically regarded as less conceptually problematic than ultraviolet divergences because there is a cancellation mechanism that renders measurable physical observables such as decay rates and cross-sections infrared finite. In this article, I scrutinize the restriction to measurable physical observables that is required to arrive at infrared finite results. I argue that the restriction does not necessitate a retreat to operationalism (...) about the meaning of the theory, but it does call attention to underappreciated features of the infrared regime. (shrink)

A study of Chrisoula Andreou’s Choosing Well. Andreou defends “a revisionary way of understanding instrumental rationality,” one that contrasts with “standard conceptions of instrumental rationality” that are characteristic of orthodox decision theory. I applaud Andreou’s revisionary efforts but explore whether they lead to a yet further revision that appeals to norms of plan rationality.

Infantologies is a collective writing project designed to express and summarise important ideas, approaches and forms of advocacy in a short and condensed method, in order to present a network of d...

Studies examining the ways in which the training of engineers and scientists shapes their research strategies and scientific identities.

Technology is no stranger to the city. Cities are planned, built, maintained, governed, demolished, and destroyed by technical means. Yet, the city has yet to receive much attention within the philosophy of technology. This volume addresses this gap, and in doing so contributes to the much-needed discussion on technology-enabled urban futures from the perspective of the philosophy of technology. In this introductory chapter, the larger volume is introduced by reflecting on the rationale and need for such a collection, sketching the (...) main themes analyzed throughout, and providing an overview of the contributions. (shrink)

Drawing upon selected literature from the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Canada we examine how Foucault's concepts of ‘episteme’, ‘rupture’ ‘parrhesia’ ‘care of the self’, and ‘problemitization’ have been applied to particular contexts of leadership development, pedagogy, nursing knowledge, and the relationship between caring and politics. Our aims are threefold: to give examples of how selected Foucauldian concepts have been taken up in practice; to clarify how we are positioned today as nurses; and to invite more nurses to engage critically with (...) historical inquiry and to engage in deep philosophical reflection about their relationship with nursing. We begin by examining the conditions and circumstances of Foucault's life, and conclude by posing the question in our subtitle to stimulate debate about the philosophical relevance of Foucauldian scholarship to nursing. (shrink)

In her 2021 Lebowitz Prize Lecture, ‘A Simple Theory of Acting Together’, Margaret Gilbert seeks to articulate the ‘idea’ of acting together that ‘animates’ our commonsense talk about this important phenomenon. I seek a model that provides illuminating sufficient conditions for this phenomenon. As I see it, these are not quite the same project. After all, our commonsense idea and talk may well have two interrelated faces: an inchoate understanding of what the phenomenon is; and an inchoate understanding of norms (...) about, very roughly, what those who participate in this phenomenon normally thereby owe to each other. Gilbert develops a rich and complex articulation of this second element, one according to which the interpersonal obligations in question are not in general moral obligations. Broadly speaking, her strategy is then to take this web of interpersonal obligations and the like and directly build it into her account of what the phenomenon of acting together is. This leads her to say that that phenomenon involves a non-reducible phenomenon in whichAandBare ‘jointly committed to endorseGas a body’––where such joint commitments are constituted at least in part by the interpersonal obligations and the like to which our commonsense idea of acting together alludes. (shrink)