Evolutionary contingency as non-trivial objective probability: Biological evitability and evolutionary trajectories

IF 0.9 4区 哲学 Q1 Arts and Humanities
T.Y. William Wong
{"title":"Evolutionary contingency as non-trivial objective probability: Biological evitability and evolutionary trajectories","authors":"T.Y. William Wong","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsc.2019.101246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Contingency-theorists have put forth differing accounts of evolutionary contingency. The bulk of these accounts abstractly refer to certain causal structures in which an evolutionarily contingent outcome is supposedly embedded. For example, an outcome is evolutionarily contingent if it is at the end of a ‘path-dependent’ or ‘causally dependent’ causal chain. However, this paper argues that many of these proposals fail to include a desideratum – the notion of <em>biological evitability</em> or that evolutionary outcomes <em>could have been otherwise</em> – that for good theoretical reasons ought to be part of an account of evolutionary contingency. Although an inclusion of this desideratum might seem obvious enough, under some existing accounts, an outcome can be contingent yet <em>inevitable</em> all the same. In my diagnosis of this issue, I develop the idea of <em>trajectory propensity</em> to highlight the fact that there are plausible biological scenarios in which causal structures, alone, fail to exhaustively determine the biological evitability of evolutionary forms. In the second half of the paper, I present two additional desiderata of an account of evolutionary contingency and, subsequently, proffer a novel account of evolutionary contingency as <em>non-trivial objective probability,</em> which overcomes the shortcomings of some previous proposals. According to this outcome-based account, contingency claims are probabilistic statements about an evolutionary outcome's objective probability of evolution within a specifically defined modal range: an outcome, O, is evolutionarily contingent in modal range, R, to the degree of objective probability, P (where P is in between 1 and 0).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48557,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C-Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.shpsc.2019.101246","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C-Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848619300640","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Contingency-theorists have put forth differing accounts of evolutionary contingency. The bulk of these accounts abstractly refer to certain causal structures in which an evolutionarily contingent outcome is supposedly embedded. For example, an outcome is evolutionarily contingent if it is at the end of a ‘path-dependent’ or ‘causally dependent’ causal chain. However, this paper argues that many of these proposals fail to include a desideratum – the notion of biological evitability or that evolutionary outcomes could have been otherwise – that for good theoretical reasons ought to be part of an account of evolutionary contingency. Although an inclusion of this desideratum might seem obvious enough, under some existing accounts, an outcome can be contingent yet inevitable all the same. In my diagnosis of this issue, I develop the idea of trajectory propensity to highlight the fact that there are plausible biological scenarios in which causal structures, alone, fail to exhaustively determine the biological evitability of evolutionary forms. In the second half of the paper, I present two additional desiderata of an account of evolutionary contingency and, subsequently, proffer a novel account of evolutionary contingency as non-trivial objective probability, which overcomes the shortcomings of some previous proposals. According to this outcome-based account, contingency claims are probabilistic statements about an evolutionary outcome's objective probability of evolution within a specifically defined modal range: an outcome, O, is evolutionarily contingent in modal range, R, to the degree of objective probability, P (where P is in between 1 and 0).

作为非平凡客观概率的进化偶然性:生物必然性和进化轨迹
偶然性论者对进化偶然性提出了不同的解释。这些描述的大部分抽象地指的是某些因果结构,在这些结构中,一个进化上偶然的结果被认为是嵌入的。例如,如果一个结果处于“路径依赖”或“因果依赖”因果链的末端,那么它就是进化偶然性的。然而,这篇论文认为,许多这些建议没有包括一个理想的概念——生物必然性的概念,或者进化结果可能是其他的——从理论上讲,这应该是进化偶然性的一部分。尽管将这一愿望纳入其中似乎是显而易见的,但根据一些现有的说法,结果可能是偶然的,但仍然是不可避免的。在我对这个问题的诊断中,我提出了轨迹倾向的概念,以强调这样一个事实,即存在看似合理的生物学情景,其中因果结构本身并不能详尽地决定进化形式的生物学必然性。在论文的后半部分,我提出了两个额外的关于进化偶然性的描述,随后,我提出了一个关于进化偶然性作为非平凡客观概率的新描述,它克服了以前一些建议的缺点。根据这种基于结果的解释,偶然性主张是在特定定义的模态范围内关于进化结果的客观进化概率的概率陈述:结果O在模态范围R内的进化偶然程度为客观概率P(其中P介于1和0之间)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences is devoted to historical, sociological, philosophical and ethical aspects of the life and environmental sciences, of the sciences of mind and behaviour, and of the medical and biomedical sciences and technologies. Contributions are from a wide range of countries and cultural traditions; we encourage both specialist articles, and articles combining historical, philosophical, and sociological approaches; and we favour works of interest to scientists and medics as well as to specialists in the history, philosophy and sociology of the sciences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信