Underqualified-maximal generality in Darwinian explanation: a response to Matt Gers

G.M. Hodgson, T. Knudsen

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    4 Citations (Scopus)
    51 Downloads (Pure)


    Gers (Biol Philos, 2011) provides a positive and constructive view of the project to generalise Darwinian principles in Geoffrey Hodgson and Thorbjørn Knudsen's Darwin's Conjecture. We note considerable overlap with his work and ours, and also with important recent work of Godfrey-Smith (2009), which Gers cites extensively. But we also note that there are differences in research objectives between Gers and Godfrey-Smith, on the one hand, and ourselves, on the other. Gers and Godfrey-Smith focus on the elucidation of the most general principles possible. Our aim is to derive principles that are sufficiently abstract to span the natural and human social worlds, and then add additional principles to help understand the Darwinian evolution of human society. Furthermore, Gers and Godfrey-Smith critique a replicator concept that is different from ours. Once these points are made apparent, the criticisms are essentially disabled, and we end up in a position with different but complementary and overlapping research projects.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)607-614
    Number of pages8
    JournalBiology and Philosophy
    Issue number4
    Publication statusPublished - 2012


    Dive into the research topics of 'Underqualified-maximal generality in Darwinian explanation: a response to Matt Gers'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this