Explanatory Pluralism in Paleobiology
- 1 January 1999
- journal article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Philosophy of Science
- Vol. 66 (S3) , S223-S236
- https://doi.org/10.1086/392727
Abstract
This paper is a defense of “explanatory pluralism” (i.e., the view that some events can be correctly explained in two distinct ways). To defend pluralism, I identify two distinct (but compatible) styles of explanation in paleobiology. The first approach (“actual sequence explanation”) traces out the particular forces that affect each species. The second approach treats the trend as “passive” or “random” diffusion away from a boundary in morphological space. I argue that while these strategies are distinct, some trends are correctly explained in both ways. Further, since neither strategy can be reduced or eliminated from paleobiology, we should accept that both strategies can provide correct explanations for a single trend.Keywords
This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- Body-size evolution in Cretaceous molluscs and the status of Cope's ruleNature, 1997
- Explanatory pluralism in evolutionary biologyBiology & Philosophy, 1996
- MECHANISMS OF LARGE-SCALE EVOLUTIONARY TRENDSEvolution, 1994
- Behavioral Ecology and Levels of Selection: Dissolving the Group Selection ControversyAdvances in the Study of Behavior, 1994
- On Pluralism and Competition in Evolutionary ExplanationsAmerican Zoologist, 1992
- Tempered Realism about the Force of SelectionPhilosophy of Science, 1991
- Complexity and evolution: What everybody knowsBiology & Philosophy, 1991
- Trends as changes in variance: a new slant on progress and directionality in evolutionJournal of Paleontology, 1988
- Fossil horses from “Eohippus” (Hyracotherium) to Equus: scaling, Cope's Law, and the evolution of body sizePaleobiology, 1986
- AN EXPLANATION FOR COPE'S RULEEvolution, 1973