There are two interrelated but distinct programs which go by the name evolutionary epistemology. One attempts to account for the characteristics of cognitive mechanisms in animals and humans by a straightforward extension of the biological theory of evolution to those aspects or traits of animals which are the biological substrates of cognitive activity, e.g., their brains, sensory systems, motor systems, etc. (EEM program). The other program attempts to account for the evaluation of ideas, scientific theories and culture in general by (...) using models and metaphors drawn from evolutionary biology (EET program). The paper begins by distinguishing the two programs and discussing the relationship between them. The next section addresses the metaphorical and analogical relationship between evolutionary epistemology and evolutionary biology. Section IV treats the question of the locus of the epistemological problem in the light of an evolutionary analysis. The key questions here involve the relationship between evolutionary epistemology and traditional epistemology and the legitimacy of evolutionary epistemology as epistemology. Section V examines the underlying ontological presuppositions and implications of evolutionary epistemology. Finally, section VI, which is merely the sketch of a problem, addresses the parallel between evolutionary epistemology and evolutionary ethics. (shrink)

The goal of this dissertation is to reconstruct, critically evaluate, and apply the pluralism of Paul Feyerabend. I conclude by suggesting future points of contact between Feyerabend’s pluralism and topics of interest in contemporary philosophy of science. I begin, in Chapter 1, by reconstructing Feyerabend’s critical philosophy. I show how his published works from 1948 until 1970 show a remarkably consistent argumentative strategy which becomes more refined and general as Feyerabend’s thought matures. Specifically, I argue that Feyerabend develops a persuasive (...) case against rationalism, or the thesis that there exist normative and exclusive rules of scientific rationality. In Chapter 2, I reconstruct Feyerabend’s pluralism and detail its relationship to his humanitarianism and epistemological anarchism. I understand Feyerabend’s pluralism as the combination of the principles of proliferation and tenacity. I show the evolution and justification of these principles from Feyerabend’s early papers until the late 1970s. In Chapter 3, I defend Feyerabend’s pluralism from its most prominent criticisms. I then clarify that Feyerabend’s pluralism amounts to a conception of the logic of theory pursuit and modify his view using insights from C.S. Peirce, Pierre Duhem, and Michael Polanyi. From Peirce, I show how economic, sociological, and value-laden features of theory pursuit may be used to constrain proliferation and tenacity. From Duhem and Polanyi, I try to show the proper role of tacit knowledge within a Feyerabendian framework. Finally, I show what implications Feyerabend’s pluralism has for models of distributing funds within scientific communities. I contend that it provides a more promising model that the ‘well-ordered science’ proposal advanced by numerous philosophers and social scientists. Specifically, I aim to understand what taking Feyerabend’s pluralism seriously entails for principles of balancing funding allocation decisions and the role of peer-review in evaluating the potential success of research proposals. I conclude by suggesting future lines of research for further analyzing and applying Feyerabend’s pluralism. (shrink)

Building on work by Popper, Schweber, Nozick, Sober, and others in a still-growing literature, I explore here the conceptual kinship between Adam Smith''s ''invisible hand'' and Darwinian natural selection. I review the historical ties, and examine Ullman -Margalit''s ''constraints'' on invisible-hand accounts, which I later re-apply to natural selection, bringing home the close relationship. These theories share a ''parent'' principle, itself neither biological no politico-economic, that collective order and well-being can emerge parsimoniously from the dispersed action of individuals. The invisible (...) hand operates on ''memes'' the way natural selection operates on genes. Like Darwin''s concept, it brings together traditional opposites, ''nature'' and ''selection,'' forming a saltation-mitigating transition between biological instinct and full-blown conscious design. Herschel''s criterion of confirmation, which Darwin long strove to satisfy, is itself an invisible hand-like meme – a ''Midas effect'' revealing and rewarding the fittest theories, Darwin''s and Smith''s emphatically among them. (shrink)

The formulae advanced by Popper to calculate the degree of corroboration C of a scientific hypothesis are unsatisfactory in that the probability values required in the computation are often not available. An attempt is made to define a quantitative measure B* in the place of C in which only countable empirical values would be used. This condition is fulfilled in two basic formulae and eq. ), which could be applied to calculate the degree of corroboration. When m successful falsifications of (...) the hypothesis h appear after a sequence of n unsuccessful ones, the pragmatic degree of corroboration B* results from the difference between B and the analogue value of the falsification F* and eq. ). In the event that the hypothesis can be "rescued" through a correction, increased experimental effort must be made with the revision. This would be taken into account through the correction equation ). When the hypothesis cannot be corrected, however, it can no longer exceed the value of 1-F*, even after numerous verification experiments. In the process of deciding whether a hypothesis is "adequately" verified or falsified, a lower threshold ${\rm B}_{{\rm u}}$ und Bₒ must be selected. These values have to be chosen on an intuitive subjective basis. The same applies to the strength of unsuccessful falsifications . This evaluation is expressed by a multiplicative constant a̱ ) or an additive constant kₐ in eq. . Despite the subjectivity of the values a̱, kₐ necessary for the calculation of B*, and of the values ${\rm B}_{{\rm u}}$ , Bₒ for the decision to discontiue the examination of the hypothesis, I feel that amongst the scientists within a particular field of research, a consensus for these values should be possible. Through a quantitative determination of B* the procedure for testing a hypothesis, considered to be a closed loop process, becomes clearer. To estimate the values of B* could not only have an influence upon the decisions of the respective researchers or research groups examining a hypothesis, but also be of assistance in decisions regarding research grants when financial resources are limited. (shrink)