7/27/2019 alex4.pdf

1/24

How Jerry Fodor Slid Down the Slippery Slope to Anti-Darwinism,

And How We Can Avoid the Same Fate.*

Whenaphilosopheradvancesapurelyaprioriargumenttoshowthatawell-

establishedscientifictheoryisfatallydefective,itisusuallysafetoassumethatthe

problemisthephilosophersandnotthetheorys.

Butsometimesthephilosopherisontosomething,andtheoutcomeresults

inanimprovementinthetheoryoranimportantrealizationaboutitshitherto

unrecognizedimplications.Ontheseoccasions,however,thephilosopherisusually

inthedarkaboutwhathisargumenthasreallyshown.

Anexampleisworthrecalling.Famouslyin1935Einstein(alongwith

PodolskyandRosen)raisedanaprioriobjectiontoquantummechanics:itstruth

requiredspookyactionatadistance.Accordingly,Einsteinalwaysinsistedthat

quantummechanicswasincomplete;therehadtobedeterministichiddenvariables

atwork.FewphysicistsacceptedtheEPRthoughtexperimentasrightuntilitturned

outthatspookyactionatadistanceobtained,justasEinsteinsaidithadtofor

quantumindeterminismtoberight.IneffectEPRsmodustollensargumentwas

turnedintoamodusponensthatthattaughtussomethingnewaboutreality.

ThisisthewayweshouldtreatJerryFodorsargumentagainstDarwinian

theory.1Hismodustollensisabiologistsandcognitivescientistsmodusponens.

AssuminghisargumentisvalidtherightconclusionisnotthatDarwinstheoryis

mistakenbutthatJerrysandanyothernon-Darwinianapproachtothemindis

wrong.ThatputsJerryingoodcompany,ofcourse:Einsteins.

ThewayJerrywentwrongisalsoinstructive.Itshowshowgettingthings

wronginthephilosophyofbiologyleads,andnotevenforthefirsttime,tomistaken

*ThankstoElliotSober,RobertBrandon,MohanMatthen,KarenNeander,AlanLove

andFredDretskeforcommentsonapreviousdraft.

1What Darwin Got Wrong, J. Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Farrar, Straus andGiroux, 2009

7/27/2019 alex4.pdf

2/24

2

conclusionswiththepotentialtodamagetheacceptanceofatheory,damagewith

harmfulconsequencesforhumanwellbeing.

JerrywasfatedtoattackDarwiniantheorylongbeforeheactuallygotaround

toit.Butittookhimsomeyearstorealizehisfatedifnotfatalrepulsion.Itall

startedwithteleosemantics,andhisattackontheveryideaofitinTheTheoryof

Content.2Butittookatleast17yearsforthepennytodropandforJerrytorealize3

itwasDarwinheneededtorefute,notDennett,Bennett,Millikan,Dretske,Neander,

Lloyd,Papineau,Matthenandtheirfellowtravelers.

IntheperiodafterDanDennettwrote ContentandConsciousness

teleosemanticsbecameaflourishingindustry.ContributionsbyDavidPapineau,

KarenNeander,FredDretskeandmostofallRuthMillikandidmuchtodevelopa

naturalisticaccountofintentionalitythatexploitedDarwiniannaturalselection.

Therewasofcoursenomoreseriouschallengefacingnaturalismthanthe

problemofintentionality.BynaturalismImeanroughlythedoctrinethatweshould

treatthesciencesasourbestguidesinsolvingphilosophicalproblems.Thisis

especiallygoodadviceincertainquartersofmetaphysics,sinceourmostreliable

guidetowhatthereishastobephysicalscience.

Thebasicproblemthatintentionalityraisesfornaturalismhasbeenobvious

enoughsinceDescartesorevenPlato[Meno,99]:howcanaclumpofmatter,for

example,thebrainorsomeproperpartofit,havepropositionalcontent,beabout

someotherthingintheuniverse.Whatnaturalismrequiresisapurelyphysical,

causalaccountofintentionalitythatitselfmakesnoovertorcovertappealto

2MITPress,1990,particularlyTheoryofContent,I.Blowingonesownhorn

department:Beforethat,inIntentionalPsychologyandEvolutionaryBiology,PartI:TheUneasyAnalogy,Behaviorism,14,1986:15-28.AndIntentionalPsychology

andEvolutionaryBiology:PartII:CrucialDisanalogy,Behaviorism,14,1986:125-

138,IhaddeployedthesameargumentJerryusedin TheoryofContenttoadvanceaconclusionsimilartotheoneIwilladvancehere.3AgainstDarwinism,http://www.google.com/search?q=jerry+fodor+against+darwinism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-

8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a, January 18, 2007

7/27/2019 alex4.pdf

3/24

3

semanticalconcepts.4

Naturalismsbestresource,perhapsitsonlyresource,forsolvingthebasic

problemofintentionalitycertainlyseemstobeDarwinstheoryofnaturalselection.

Thereisonehugereasonforsupposingso.Behaviorguidedbyintentionalstatesis

purposive,goaldirected,itisquintessentiallymeansaimedatends.Purposive

behaviorinheritsitspurposivenessfrombrainstates.

Aswellhaveoccasionbrieflytoexplainbelow,thereisonlyonephysically

possibleprocessthatbuildsandoperatespurposivesystemsinnature:natural

selection.Moreprecisely,whatitdoesisbuildandoperatesystemsthatlooktous

purposive,goaldirected,teleological.Therereallyarentanypurposesinnatureand

nopurposiveprocessesether.Itsjustonevastnetworkoflinkedcausalchains.The

notionthatDarwiniannaturalselectionnaturalizedpurposesisjustawayofsugar

coatingitsbitterpill.Thisissomethingclearlyrecognizedbycreationistsandother

otherwisebenightedopponentsofDarwiniantheory.BelowIllexplainwhy

Darwiniannaturalselectionistheonlyprocessthatcouldproducetheappearance

ofpurpose.Thatiswhynaturalselectionmusthavebuiltandmustcontinually

shapetheintentionalcausesofpurposivebehavior.Accordingly,weshouldlookto

Darwinianprocessestoprovideacausalaccountofintentionalcontent.Thatswhat

makesteleosemanticsinevitable.

Teleosemanticsmaintainsthattheneuralcircuitryinthefrogthatproduces

flysnappinghasbeentunedupbyphylogeneticallybynaturalselectionand

ontogenetically,developmentally,bythelawofeffectoperantconditioning

Darwinismschipofftheoldblock.5And,itclaimsthattheneuralcircuitrys

4Ofcourse,thisisonlythebasicproblem:thenextproblemishowtheclumpof

mattercanbeaboutproperties,orevenharder,beaboutpropositionsfalseaswellastrue,abstractobjectssuchasuniversalsandnumbers,andfictional,imaginary,or

impossibleobjects.Butsolvingthebasicproblemisasufficientlyimposingchallenge.

5Dennett,Whythelawofeffectwontgoaway,Brainstorms,Cambridge,MITPress,1987.Forthesepurposesthefrogturnsouttobeabadexample,sinceitscloseto

impervioustooperantconditioning,Butscienceshouldntstandinthewayofphilosophy

7/27/2019 alex4.pdf

4/24

4

intentionalcontentconsistsinthosephylogeneticandontogeneticfactsaboutit.

ThisiswhereJerryFodorthrowsaspannerintheworks.Heshowsitcantbe

done:Youcannotanalyzeintentionalcontentbyappealtotheetiology

phylogeneticorontogeneticofthewetstuffinthebrain,theneuralcircuitrythat

givesrisetothepurposivebehavior,nomatterhowexquisitelyappropriatethe

behavioristoitscircumstances.ItsFodorianproseatitsbest:

TheMoraltorepeatisthatDarwindoesntcarehowyoudescribethe

intentionalobjectoffrogsnaps.Allthatmattersforselectionishowmany

fliesthefrogmanagestoingestinconsequenceofitssnapping,andthis

numbercomesoutexactlythesamewhetheronedescribesthefunctionof

thesnapguidancemechanismswithrespecttoaworldthatispopulatedby

fliesthatare,defacto,ambientblackdots,orwithrespecttoaworldthatis

populatedbyambientblackdotsthatare,defacto,flies.Eskomitdas

fressen,dennkommtdiemorale.Darwincareshowmanyfliesyoueat,but

notwhatdescriptionyoueatthemunder.[ATheoryofContent,p.XX]

Thetechnicalissuefacingteleosemanticsisindeterminacyofpropositional

content.Themostexquisiteenvironmentalappropriatenessofthebehavior

producedbysomeneuralcircuitsfiringwontnarrowdownitscontenttoone

uniqueproposition.ThisissomethingthatQuinenoted.Jerrylabeledthis

indeterminacyissuethedisjunctionproblemandeversincemanywritershave

useditasastickwithwhichtobeatallcausaltheoriesofcontent.

Intheactualenvironmentinwhichfrogsevolved,andintheactual

environmentinwhichthisfroglearnedhowtomakealiving,theneuralcircuitry

thatwasselectedforcausingthefrogstonguetosnapattheflyatx,y,z,tissupposedtohavethecontentFlyatx,y,z,t.Butphylogeneticandontogenetic

Darwinianprocessesofselectioncantdiscriminateamongindefinitelymanyother

alternativeneuralcontentswiththesameeffectsintonguesnappingbehavior.Its

nowfamousthatthereisnowayanyteleosemantictheorycantellwhetherthe

contentoftherelevantfrogsneuralcircuitisFlyorblackmovingdotatx,y,z,t,or

7/27/2019 alex4.pdf

5/24

5

flyorbeebeeatx,y,z,t.oranyofazillionotherdisjunctiveobjectsofthought,so

longasnoneofthesedisjunctshaseveractuallybeenpresentedtothefly6Whence

thename,disjunctionproblem.

Oncehebegantopursuethislineofargumentagainstteleosemantics,itwas

inevitablethatJerrywouldeventuallyhavetorepudiateDarwinstheoryaltogether.

Thespecificreasonisroughlythatanynaturalistic,purelycausal,non-semantical

accountofcontentwillhavetorelyonDarwiniannaturalselectiontobuildand

operatecontentfulneuralstates.ThemoregeneralreasonJerrywouldhaveto

repudiateDarwinisthatnocausaltheorywhatever,includingJerrysfavoriteone,

canaccountfordeterminatesemanticcontentandsoeoipsoaDarwiniantheory

couldnotdoso.

Howsurprisingshouldthisbe?Roughlyspeaking,ifthereareanytruthsthat

areintensionalintheirsemantics,thenaswealreadyknowtoowell,nophysical

theorycanaccommodatethem.Andofcoursetheantehasgoneupeversince

philosophersbegantakinghyperintensionalityseriously.Imaginedemandingthata

physicaltheorygroundthoughtsaboutimpossibleworlds.

SinceitiseasytoshowthatDarwiniantheoryisapurelyphysicaltheory,itis

nosurprisethatanyonewhodemandsofsciencethatitaccommodateintensional

contextswillhavetorepudiateDarwinstheory.LeaveittoJerrytomakeacause

clbreoutofanunpalatablenecessity.

ItsprettyeasytoshowthatJerrysargumentagainstDarwinisjusthis

argumentagainstteleosemanticswarmedover.Anditsnottoohardtoshowthat

phylogeneticDarwinismdoesnthavetotakethisthreatveryseriously.Thebenefit

ofseeingthisisnotjustthatittakestheMickeyoutofJerryscritiqueofMillikan,

Neander,Dretske&Co.Rather,itshouldbegintosuggestthatthatnotheoryof

contentneedstosolvethedisjunctionproblem!

6Itsnotasthoughthisproblemofindeterminacyescapedthenoticeof

teleosemanticists.DennettalreadynoticeditinContentandConsciousness,thoughhispreferredanimalcompanionwasadog.Hedetectedtheindeterminacyproblem

buthedidntsolveit.

7/27/2019 alex4.pdf

6/24

6

WhatexactlyisJerrysbeefwithDarwinisminitshomebaseofphylogenetic

evolution?Itsthedisjunctionproblemalloveragain:Wearesupposedtoimagine

twodistincttraits,TandT,onlyoneofwhichisadaptivebutwhicharelocally

coextensive,inthewaythatdetectingaflyanddetectingaflyorabeebee,orany

ofanindefinitelylargenumberofothercontentfulstatesarelocallycoextensivein

frogtonguesnappingetiologies.

Takesomecarefullychosenadaptivetraitandoneofitsneutraloreven

maladaptivesideeffects:Considerthewell-usedexamplefromthedebatesabout

selectedeffectsanalysisofbiologicalfunctions:thetraitsofcirculatingtheblood

andmakingthump-thumpnoises.Sincetheygotogetherowingpresumablyto

physicallawactingonlocalconditions,thereisnowaynaturalselectioncanpull

themapart.Yetitsaysthatonewasselectedforandtheotherwasnot.Thatis,we

wanttoacceptthecounterfactualthat

Wereheartstopumpwithoutmakingnoises,theywouldhavebeenselectedfor

anyway.

Wewanttorejectthecounterfactualthat

Wereheartstomakenoisewithoutpumpingthebloodtheywouldbeselectedfor

anyway.

ButDarwinianprocessessupposedlycantdiscriminatethosetwo

counterfactuals,showingthefirsttobetrueandthesecondtobefalse.Whynot?

Becausesolongasthepropertiesare,asstipulated,locallyco-extensive,one

propertysfrequencycantchangewithouttheotherschanging.So,Darwinstheory

cannotsaythatoneisselectedforandnottheother.ThisisthepointJerrymade

againstteleosemantics:itcanttellwhetherflyflickingisselectedforinsteadoffly

orbeebeeflicking,soitcantdiscriminateintentionalcontent.

WheredidJerrygowrong?ThefirstandbiggestmistakeJerrymade,alongwithalotofotherpeople,is

tosupposethataccordingtoDarwiniantheory,thereisanysuchthingasselection

forinnature.No.Thereisonlyselection-against.

ThewholepointofDarwinstheoryisthatinthecreationofadaptations,

natureisnotactive,itspassive.Whatisreallygoingonisenvironmentalfiltration

7/27/2019 alex4.pdf

7/24

7

apurelypassiveandnotverydiscriminatingprocessthatpreventsmosttraits

belowsomeminimallocalthresholdfrompersisting.AsJerrymightputit,Darwin

doesntcarewhichtraitsgetpastthefilter,includingallthebizarredisjunctivetraits

anystudentofNelsonGoodmancancomeupwith.Darwinonlycaresaboutwhich

traitscant.Heandhistheoryhavenotimeorneedforselection-for.Itsatheory

thatgivesprideofplacetoselection-against.Andthatsnotadefect,weakness,

oversightorproblemofthetheory.Thatsitsgreatstrength.Why?

ThecoreofDarwinstheoreticalachievementwastoidentifyapurelycausal

mechanismthatproducesadaptations.Ofcourseestablishingthateveryorganism

andeveryspeciesisapartofthesingletreeoflifewasextremelyimportantandhad

aprofoundsignificanceonourculture.ButDarwinsrealtheoreticalachievement

wastorefuteKantsdictumthatTherewillneverbeaNewtonforthebladeof

grass.7Darwinssignalachievementwastheoretical:identifyingthemechanism

random,i.e.blind,unforesightedvariationandpassive,environmentalfiltrationthat

sculptstheappearanceofpurposeinnature,eventhoughthereisnorealityof

purposeoperatinginit.Heuncoveredtheprocessesthatgiverisetothe

means/endseconomyamongbiologicalpartsandwholes.Thismeans/ends

economyproducedbyselection-againstissowidespreadinnaturethatwehave

overgeneralizedandcometodetectiteverywhere,eveninplaceswhereitdoesnt

exist.

OnceitisrecognizedthatDarwinruledoutselectionfor,andinsistedonlyon

thecausalefficacyofselection-againstalotofbiologicalproblemswereresolved

includingtheexistenceofallthoseimperfectionseverywhereinnature.Andit

solvessomephilosophicalproblemsaswell,likewhyDarwinianprocessesneednt

worryaboutdifferencesbetweenrealtraitsandGoodmanequetraitsor

CambridgetraitsordisjunctiveoneslikeJerrys.ToseehowtheprocessthatDarwindiscoveredselection-against--works,

consideranexample:twodistinctgeneproducts,oneofwhichisneutraloreven

7CritiqueofJudgment,section75.

7/27/2019 alex4.pdf

8/24

8

harmfultoanorganismandtheotherofwhichisbeneficial,whicharecodedforby

genesrightnexttoeachotheronthechromosomes.Thisisthephenomenonof

geneticlinkage.Thetraitsthatthegenescodedforwillbecoextensiveina

populationasetoforganisms--becausethegene-typesarecoextensive.Mendelian

assortmentandsegregationdontbreakupthesepackagesofgeneswithany

efficiency.Onlycross-over(andothernonselective-against)processescandothis.

AsDarwinrealized,noprocessinnature(includingonesheknewnothingabout,

likecross-over,whichbreaksupthesepackages)picksuponusefulness,

convenience,need,theadaptationalvalueofanythingatall.Onceenvironmental

vicissitudesbreakuptheDNAonwhichthetwoadjacentgenessit,selection-against

cangetstartedifoneofthetwoproteinsisharmful.

Theonlythingmothernature(a.k.a.naturalselection-against)candoabout

thefree-ridingmaladaptiveorneutraltrait,whosegenesareridingalongcloseto

thegenesforanadaptiveone,iswaitaroundforthegeneticmaterialtobebrokenat

justtherightplacebetweentheirrespectivegenes.Oncethishappens,inJerrys

words,Darwincanbegintotellthedifferencebetweenthem.Ofcourseasmolecular

biologydevelopswellbeabletoactasasourceofvariation,toeffectthesebreaks

withrestrictionenzymes,andthenasafilterthatcanaccuratelyknockoutany

neuralormaladaptiveorforthatmatteranyotherwiseadaptivegenewelike.

JerrysobjectiontothisstoryisthatDarwiniantheorycanttellthedifference

betweenthesetwogenesortheirtraitsuntilcross-overbreaksthelinkagebetween

thegenethatisgoingtoincreaseitsfrequencyandonethatisgoingtodecreaseits

frequency.

Aswehavealreadynoted,Darwindoesnthavetotellthedifferencebetween

themifoneisanadaptationandtheotherisneutral.Itsonlyselecting-against.

Whatismore,Darwinismtellsustolookforadaptationsallovertheplace,andnotbeanthropomorphicaboutit.Inthiscasethebeneficialproteinanditsassociated

genearenotselectedagainstjustbecausethetraitisbeneficialtotheorganism;

meanwhiletheharmfulproteinisnotselectedagainstbecauseitsgenehasatrait

beneficialtoitself(andtoitsprotein-product)itslocationonthechromosome

hardbythegeneforthebeneficialprotein.Thatswhyneitherharmfulgene-product

7/27/2019 alex4.pdf

9/24

9

northegenethatproducesitisselectedagainst.

IsuspectthatJerryandalotofotherpeoplehavenotnoticedthatselection-

againstisntthecontradictoryofselectionfor.Thefailuretorealizethatthesetwo

termsarecontraries,andnotcontradictoriesisoneofthestrongest

encouragementsofoverzealousadaptationisminbiologyandoutsideofit.

Whyaretheynotcontradictories?Thatis,whyisntselection-againsttraitT

justselectionfortraitnot-T?Simplybecausetherearetraitsthatareneither

selected-againstnorselected-for.Thesearetheneutralonesthatbiologists,

especiallymolecularevolutionarybiologists,insistuponsostrongly.Selectionfor

andselection-againstarecontraries,notcontradictories.

Iftheywantedcontradictoriesevolutionarybiologistscoulddowhat

economistshavedone.Economistsdefineaisweaklypreferredtobbyxtomeana

ispreferredtobbyxorxisindifferentbetweenthem.Theydidthisbecausethey

neededtoallowforindifferencebetweenalternativesinordertoproveimportant

theoremsinmathematicaleconomics.Fordifferentreasonse.g.toavoid

accusationsofjejuneadaptationalism,biologistsmaywanttodothesamething.

Biologistscoulddefineaisselectedfortomeanaisnotneutralornotselected

againstOnthemodelofweakpreference,wemightcallthisweakselectionfor.In

fact,theyprobablywilldosoifJerrysmisunderstandingofDarwinstheorygetsany

traction.

Ifweadoptthisterminologicalclarification,therewillnotbemuchleftto

JerrysargumentsagainstDarwinism.Butwhatifbiologistsbenightedlyinsistthat

itsnotenoughtoexplainevolutionpurelyasselection-againsttraitsjustbad

enoughnottomakeitthroughtheenvironmentalfilter.Supposetheydemandthat

Darwinstheorydistinguishtraitsselectedforfromtraitsweaklyselectedfor.Well,

therearestillotherfundamentalerrorsinJerrystakeonDarwinstheorythatvitiatehiscriticismofit.

LetsconsiderthesortsoftraitsthatJerrythinksdifferinregardto

adaptationandjustcantbeseparatedbyselection.Considerforexample,the

propertyofbindingoxygenandthepropertyofreflectingredlight.Thesetwo

propertiesarecoextensiveinallmetazoansrespiratorysystems,becausetheheme

7/27/2019 alex4.pdf

10/24

10

moleculethattransportsoxygencontainsironmoleculesthatmakesthemred.The

problem,Jerrysaysisthatnaturalselectionhastobeabletoselectforoxygen

transportwithoutselectingforreflectingredlight.Forittobeabletodoso,natural

selectionhastomakeittruethat

Ifamoleculebindsoxygen,thentherewouldbeselectionforitspresencein

metazoans

Andfalsethat

Ifamoleculereflectsredlight,thentherewouldbeselectionforitspresence

inmetazoans8,9

Jerryargues,fortheformercounterfactualtobetruerequiresthattherebealawto

theeffectthat

Ifamoleculebindsoxygen,thenthereisselectionforitspresencein

metazoans

Butthereisnosuchlaw.Infact,therearenolawsabouttheselectionofanytrait.

NowtheargumentthatJerrygivesforthisclaimisprettysuperficial.Itsthat

selectioniscontextdependent,andlawscantaccommodateallthedifferent

contexts,sotherearenostatablecounterfactual-supportinguniversal

generalizationsofthesortrequiredforthetheoryofnaturalselectiontobetrue.

Itsremarkabletoreadtheexponentoftheexistenceoflawsinthespecial

sciencesmakingthedemandthatDarwinproducelawsofselectionsupportingsuch

unqualifiedcounterfactuals.Nothingwouldbeeasierthanmakingthetuquoque

pointthatthesamechallengecantbemetbytheallegedceterisparibuslawsofthe

specialsciences.Infact,thetemptationistoogreattoresist,atleastforaparagraph

orso(anditwillhaveapay-offdowntheroadtoo):

8Noticethatifweinterpretselection-forinthiscounterfactualasweakselectionfor,whichistherightinterpretation,itturnsouttrue,notfalse.Sothereisno

differencebetweenthesecounterfactualsthatrequiresexplanationintermsoflaws.ThatswhylittleremainsofJerrysargumentoncewerecognizethatthetheory

makesclaimsonlyaboutselection-against.

9Inanycase,wellseebelowthatthesearenotthecounterfactualsDarwinneedsto

getstraight.

7/27/2019 alex4.pdf

11/24

11

RecallthefamousargumentofSpecialsciences(orthedisunityofscienceas

aworkinghypothesis10that,owingtomultiplerealizability,theproprietary

regularitiesofthespecialsciencesarenotderivablefromthoseofphysics,since

theirkindtermsarenotdefinableintermsofthekindsofphysics.Nevertheless,

thesedisciplinesidentifylawsandusetheminexplanations.Jerrysexamplewas

Greshamslaw:thatbadmoneywillalwaysdrivegoodmoneyoutofcirculation.

AnothersuchexampleisthePhilipsCurveregularitythatincreasesintherateof

inflationincreasesemployment.

Ofcourse,paceJerrysunarguedassertion,11theselawsdontsupportthe

counterfactualsJerryneedsthemto.TakeGreshamslawforexample.12Thereare

manycaseswherethisdoesnthappenandsomeinwhichthereversehappens.The

waytosaveGreshamslawfromthesecasesistoreviseitandqualifyit:for

example:badmoneydrivesgoodmoneytoapremium,ormaybegovernmentally

overvaluedcurrencydrivesgovernmentallyundervaluedcurrencytoapremium.

Oneproblemwiththeformerqualificationisitsvagueness,andonetroublewiththe

latterqualificationisitsfalsity.Theonlywaytoavoidtheseproblemsistoqualify

theselawsrepeatedlyuntiltheybecomeanalytictruths.Alternatively,onecan

denythatGreshamslawisalawatall,andallowthatitisashorthandwayof

advertingtoasetofinsightsaboutparticularcasesinmonetaryhistory,which,

withoutbeinglaws,dosupportsomedifficult-exactly-to-specifycounterfactualsthat

weretrueinthosehistoricalcases.ThesamegoesforthePhillipscurvelocal

invariantregularityofmacroeconomics,andalloftheotherinexact,ceterisparibus

so-calledlawsofthespecialsciences.

10Synthese,1979,v28,pp.97-115

11Seeforexample,AgainstDarwinism,p.10,whereJerryinvokestheeffectsofunsystematic,interactingvariablestoobscurethepowerofceterisparibuslawstosupportcounterfactuals.Thetroubleisnospecialscientistisinthebusinessof

enumeratingthesevariables,norcantheyowingtotheirlargenumber,their

heterogeneity,andthevaguenessoftheirdescriptions.TheGreshamslawexampleinthetextshowstheproblemswiththisclaim.

12IdealwiththePhilipsCurveinexampleinRosenberg[2011].

7/27/2019 alex4.pdf

12/24

12

Notealsothatthisiswhytheselawsarenotreducibletolawsinnon-

specialsciences.Theirkindtermsarenon-projectablepredicatesthatthespecial

sciencesemployintheirlocalcausalclaims.

IfJerrysfavoritelawsinthespecialsciencescandoexplanatorywork

withoutsupportingbroad,unqualified,robustcounterfactuals,thenofcoursesocan

non-counterfactual-supportingstatementsaboutselection-against,weakselection-

against,andforthatmatter,theselectionforthatheandlotsofotherpeoplebelieve

Darwinismrequires.

Wherearethereallawsarethatunderwritetheselocalcausalclaimsand

theirassociatedcounterfactuals?Thisisanimportantquestiontowhichthe

philosophyofbiologyprovidesananswerwecangeneralizetoallthespecial

sciences.

Therearenolawsaboutwhatiscommonandparticulartoselection-against,

orselectionfor.Thatsbecausetherearenolawsinbiology.Buttherearelotsof

well-supportedcounterfactualsinbiology,especiallyinevolutionarybiology,that

Darwinstheorysupports.Howisthat?

Tobeginwith,itsclearthatselection-againsthasproducedalotof

adaptation.Whenenvironmentalfiltersremaininplaceforgeologicallylongepochs

thefiltersgetturnedintofine-toothcombs,sofinethattheresultofselection-

againstbecomesunbelievablyrefinedadaptations.Itsthefailuretoseethat

Darwinianprocessesareselection-againstthatleadspeopletoovershootand

becomeadaptationalists.WehaveGouldandLewontin13tothankforbringingto

theirsensesthosesociobiologists,evolutionarypsychologistsandotherDarwinians

guiltyoftropdezele.Noteverythingthathasevolvedbyselection-againstisan

adaptationofcourse.BesidesalltheneutraltraitsandtheGoodmanesque,

CambridgeandFodoriandisjunctivetraitsthatmanagetopassthroughthefilter,alotoftraitsaretheresultofagooddealofpurelyphysicalconstraint,alongwiththe

13"The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique Of TheAdaptationist Programme," Proceedings Of The Royal Society of London, Series B,Vol. 205, No. 1161 (1979), Pp. 581-598.

7/27/2019 alex4.pdf

13/24

13

constraintofprioradaptationsnowfixedbytheirdevelopmentalgeneticpriority.

Plustherearesomepreadaptationsthatemergedbyselection-againstscreeningfor

otherduties;andtherearevariableamountsofsheargeneticdrift.Butifthereare

anyadaptationsatallnotevenGouldandLewontinattheirkilljoybestsuggested

thatthereisanyalternativetotheprocessDarwindiscoveredforsculptingthemby

selection-against.Howmanyofthetraitsofbiologicalorganismsareadaptations

andhowmanyarenot,isadebatablequestiontowhichanswersvaryovertimein

differentsubdivisionsofbiology.AsIreadtherecenthistoryespeciallyofmolecular

biology,itseemstomethatmoreandmoreofthegenomewhichusedtobe

consideredjunkorneutralsequences,justcarriedalongfortheride,isnow

turningouttobeadaptative.

Sothereisadebateabouthowmanyofthebiologicallyinterestingtraitsof

creaturesareadaptationsornot,anddebatesaboutwhetheranyparticulartraitis

anadaptationornot,andfurtherdebatesaboutwhatitisnowanadaptationfor,or

whatitpreviouslywasanadaptationfor,orwhatitspartswherepreviously

adaptationsfor.Butwhatisnotupforgrabsinbiologyishowadaptations,ifthere

areany,everaroseinthefirstplace.Amongthosetraitsthatareadaptive,thatfit

intosomeorganismsorpluralorganismsends/meanseconomy,theonlywaythey

couldhavearisen,consistentwiththelawsofphysics,isthepassive,selection-

againstwaythatDarwindiscovered.

Therearemanywaystotestandconfirmhypothesesaboutwhetheratraitis

anadaptation,orthedegreetowhichitisanadaptation,ofwhichcomparative

phylogenies,andtheuseofoptimalitymodelsareonlytwo.Oncethisisestablished

therearewaystotestandconfirmthehypothesisthattheparticulartraitwasthe

productofaprocessofblindvariationandnaturalselection.Butnoneofthese

claimsabouttheselectionofparticularwillrisetograndeuroflaws.Whynot?ItsDarwinstheory,orrathertheprocessthathediscoveredforsculpting

adaptationsthatexcludesthepossibilityoflawsofselection,orofanyothersortof

7/27/2019 alex4.pdf

14/24

14

biologicallaws,thatswhy.14Thisistherecognition,dueinitsfulloriginalitytoJohn

Beatty,15thatallbiologicalregularitiesthatobtainontheEartharecontingenton

theevolutionaryprocessesofblindvariationandenvironmentalfiltration.Any

contingentgeneralizationtrueofallormostormanyofthemembersofany

biologicallykindobtainonlyinvirtueoftheoperationofblindvariationand

environmentalfiltrationonlocalconditions.Theirdependenceonlocalconditions

makesthemallnon-nomological.Moreover,forthesamereasonstheywillceaseto

obtainatsomepointowingtotheoperationofthesameprocessonlocalconditions.

Nothinginbiologyisforever.

Hereisaquickbutfairlycompletetourthroughthebiologicalregularities

thatmakesitclearwhynonearelaws,andallareonlylocalandtemporarily

invariantregularities:

Beginningatthelowestlevelofgeneralitythereareclaimsaboutparticularspecies:

Humanshave23pairsofchromosomes.

Robinseggsareblue.

Asgeneralizationsthesepropositionsarefalsifiedofcourse,byrandomvariation

thatiscontinuallyproducingcounter-examples.Theregularitiescametoberoughly

trueasaresultofnaturalselection-againstoperatingonlocalconditions.Theymay

notremainevenroughlytrue:predatorsglommingontoandselectingagainstblue

14Thelackoflawsinbiologyisinfactheavilyover-determined.Onereasonisthatallspeciesarespatiotemporallydistributedindividuals,sothatallbiologicalkinds

areimplicitlyspatiotemporalrestrictedpredicates,owingtotheirconceptual

connectionswithparticularspecies,families,genera,thathaveoccurredonthisplanet.Butthereareotherlesstendentiousargumentsforthisconclusion.InThe

AdvancementofScience(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1993)Kitcheroffersonesuchargument.Theargumentgivenaboveistheonemostrelevanttothe

presentdiscussion.

15Beatty, John. "The Evolutionary Contingency Thesis." In Gereon Wolters and JamesG. Lennox (eds.), Concepts, Theories, and Rationality in the Biological Sciences,Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1995. Beatty first articulated this thesis as far

back as "The Insights and Oversights of Molecular Genetics: The Place of theEvolutionary Perspective," in P.D. Asquith and T. Nickles (eds.),PSA 1982, Volume 1.

East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association, 1983.

7/27/2019 alex4.pdf

15/24

15

eggs(andbleenonesforthatmatter)willputanendtothisregularityortoRobins

altogether.

Movinguptohighertaxonomiclevelswefindregularitieslike

Snakeshavescales.

Mammalshavefour-chamberedhearts.

Suchregularitiesarealsofalse,andmadesobythesameprocessesthatmake

regularitiesaboutparticularspeciesfalse.

Thenthereareapparentregularitiesthatcutacrosshighertaxa:

Arcticspecieshavelowersurfaceareatovolumeratiosthan

non-Arcticspeciesinthesamefamily(becauselowerratiosofsurfaceto

volumereduceheatloss).

Notonlyareallofthesegeneralizationsvitiatedbyexceptions,butevenifthey

happenedtobetrueforsomeperiod,wecanbeconfidentthatlocalconditions

somewhereandsomewhenwillmakethemfalse.Andwecaneasilyconjureupor

createcircumstancescompatiblewiththelawsofphysicsandchemistrythatwill

makethemfalse.(Globalwarmingmaybedoingitforus.)Ontheotherhand,wecan

employtheforegoinggeneralizationsinexplanations.Theyarenotlawsanddont

pretendtobe.Rathertheysummarizelocalcausalrelationsthatobtaininvirtueof

muchmorefundamentallawsoperatingonlocalconditions.Theseregularitiesare

localhistoricallycontingentpatterns.16Theonlycounterfactualstheysupportare

equallylocalandhedgedaroundwithceterisparibusclauses.

Herearetwomorewellknownlocalregularitiesmadeapproximately

16Atthispoint,Jerrymayinterject,withexasperation,thatsmypoint:

Adaptationalexplanationsareaspeciesofhistoricalnarratives.Ifso,then

everythingcanbesavedfromthewreckage[ofevolutionarybiology]exceptthenotionofselectionfor,sincehistoricalnarrativesdontsupportcounterfactuals,its

likelythatselectingforcantbesalvaged.AgainstDarwinism,p.20AsidefromthefactthatDarwinismdoesntneedselectionfor,andJerrysargumentsdontapplyto

selection-against,hedoesntseemtorecognizethathehasstumbledoverthefact

thatallexplanationsinwhathecalledthespecialsciencesincludingcognitivescienceturnouttobehistoricalexplanations,ifadaptationalonesare.Whythisis

sowillbeobviousbytheendofthispaper.

7/27/2019 alex4.pdf

16/24

16

trueforalimitedtimebytheforcesofnaturalselection:

MendelslawofsegregationInaparent,thetwoallelesforeachcharacter

separateintheproductionofgametes,sothatonlyoneistransmittedto

eachindividualinthenextgeneration.

Mendelslawofindependentassortment:Thegenesforeachcharacterare

transmittedindependentlytothenextgeneration,sothattheappearance

ofonecharacterinanoffspringwillnotaffecttheappearanceofanother

character.

Considerthemostfundamentalclaimsaboutallbiologicalsystems,

suchas:

AllgenesarecomposedofDNA.

Orthecentraldogmaofbiology,enunciatedbyFrancisCrick(1958):

GeneticinformationmovesfromDNAtoRNAtoproteinsbutnever

frombackwardsfromproteintoRNAtoDNA.

Ifeitheroftheseeverwastrue,itistruenolongerowingtothearmsracethat

producedtheretrovirus.Duringtheperioditwasunexceptionallytrue,thatwasthe

resultofalocalcompetitionamongmoleculesthatcarriedhereditaryinformation.

Oneofthemjusthappenedtobemuchbetteratitinthelocalconditionsthat

obtainedontheEarththantheothers.Butthingsdidnthavetoturnoutthatway.

Thereweremanycontingenciesthatresultedinthenucleicacidswinningtherace.

Andasforthecentraldogma,well,ithasbeenfalsifiedatleasttwodifferentways

sinceCrickenunciatedit.

Therearealsolotsofmodels,especiallymathematicalmodelsinbiology,and

biologistscallsomeofthemlaws,suchastheHardyWeinbergLawandtheFisher

sexratiomodel.17

Thesemodelsareofcoursemathematicaltruths.Theysupportno

17Hardy-Weinberglaw:Inalarge,randomlymatingpopulation,andin

theabsenceofmutation,immigration,emigration,andnaturalselection,genefrequenciesandthedistributionofgenotypesremainconstantfromgenerationto

generation. Fishers sex ratio model, roughly stated: If males are less frequent than female, males

7/27/2019 alex4.pdf

17/24

17

(synthetic,contingent,causal)counterfactuals.LikeEuclidsaxioms,theyare

approximatedtogreaterorlesserextentsinsomedomainsandnottoothers.

Indeedowingtotheoperationofblindvariationandenvironmentalfiltrationthe

samemathematicalmodelmayapplytosomepopulationsatonetimeandfailto

applytothematothertimes.

Becausetheprocessofblindvariationandnaturalselection,thepersistence

ofblindvariationandtheeffectivenessoftheenvironmentinfilteringamong

variants,canmakeorbreak,indeeddoesmakeandbreakalloftheseregularities,

noneofthemarelaws.Buttheyhaveimportantexplanatoryrolesinbiology.They

havetheserolesonlybecauseoftheoperationofreallawsonthelocalconditionsin

whichtheyemergedandwhichenablethemtopersist.

Butwhatlawsaretheserealonesthatunderwritethecausaldiagnosesmade

bytheselocalregularities?Jerrythinksthattherelevantreallawsunderwritingall

theselocalregularitieshavetobesomelawsthatmentionnaturalselectionandin

particularselectionfor.Thesewillbethelawsthattelluswhatallcasesofselection

forhaveincommon.JerrydemandsthatDarwiniantheoryproducesuchlawsand

arguesthatitcant.Hewantstoknowwhichlawinthetheoryidentifieswhatall

casesofadaptationhaveincommonbesidesbeingcasesofadaptation.Hesaysthat

thelawhastobeoftheform,IfxhaspropertyP,thenxisselectedforandhehasa

niftyargumenttoshowthatthereisnosuchlaw.

ButthatsnotthelawDarwinneedstounderwritealltheregularitieswe

canvassedabove.AllDarwinneedsisthelawthateverycaseofadaptationisthe

resultofaprocessofblindvariationandpassiveenvironmentalfiltrationof

selection-against.Itsprettyeasytoshowtheroleitplaysinarrangingthelocalfacts

have higher fitness, and females genetically disposed to bearing males will have moregrand off-spring, increasing the frequency of genetic disposition to have more male off-

spring and increasing the number of males until the proportion of males exceeds 50 %.The process will then operate in the reverse direction, maintaining the sex ratio around a

stable 1:1 equilibrium.

7/27/2019 alex4.pdf

18/24

18

reportedinallthespatiotemporallyrestrictedregularitiesofbiology.18

Thisgeneralizationisplainlycontingent.Wecanimaginecircumstancesthat

wouldtendtofalsifyit:evidenceoftheinterventionofadesigningdeity,orthe

repeatedspontaneousappearanceofarrangementsthatfulfillthecomplex

means/endseconomiesthatleadustocredittraitswithbeingadaptations,oragain

evidenceofLamarckianprocesseswherebyuseanddisuseinonegenerationleads

toadaptationalimprovementsinlatergenerations.Thereareothers.

Moreover,thisgeneralizationiswellgroundedinphysicaltheory.Infactit

identifiestheonlymechanismthatphysicscountenancesfortheemergenceof

adaptations.Physicsruledoutrealgoals,purposes,ends,teleologyingeneralas

causalforcesintheuniverselongabout1660.Inallthechangesandimprovements

thatphysicalsciencehasexperiencedsinceNewtonstime,theonefixedpointhas

beenasteadyrefusaltoallowforanythingevenresemblingrealpurposestoplay

anyroleinnature.Samegoesfordesigningdeities,ormindsofanykind.19Because

ofthisself-denyingordinance,physicsthereforerequiresthatanyphysicalprocess

thatbuildsadaptationshastostartatapointofzeroadaptation,andbuildthe

merest,tiniest,firstsliverofanadaptationfromnothingatall,anddoitallbypurely

physicalprocesses.

Infactthereisonlyonewaythatphysicswillevenpermititselftotrytobuild

anyadaptationsatall,fromthestateofzeroadaptation.Physicsrequiresthatany

processinnaturethatisasymmetricalbedrivenbythe2dlawofthermodynamics:

thelawthatentropy,disorder,almostalwaysincreases,andthatlocalincreasesin

ordermustalmostalwaysresultingreatdisorderelsewhere.Alltheother

fundamentallawsofphysicsaretimesymmetricaltheprocessestheydescribe

donthaveanintrinsictimeorderfromearliertolater.Anyprocessthatgoesonlyin

onedirectionmustbedrivenbythe2dlaw.Thatmeansprocessesthatbuildadaptations,whichareasymmetricalprocesses,parexcellence,havetobedrivenby

18ThatswhatBeattydidintheTheenvironmentalcontingencythesis.

19ExceptforthebizarrepossibilityofBoltzmannBrains,acosmologicalhypothesis

thatgivesthephilosophersuseofsciencefictioncarteblanche.

7/27/2019 alex4.pdf

19/24

19

the2dlaw.20Italsorequiresthattheybewastefulprocesses,usingupmoreorderin

producingadaptationsthantheorderthattheadaptationsconstituteandmaintain.

Itsclearthattheonlywaytobuildadaptationsconsistentwiththesetwo

requirementsistostartbyprocessesthatrandomlybuildlargenumbersof

alternativemolecularstructuresjustthroughtheoperationofthermodynamic

noise,andthenwait.Waitforwhat?Foroneormoremoleculestoturnuprandomly

thatcombinesthermodynamicstabilitywithreplicability.Eventuallyoutofshear

thermodynamicnoisetheremaycometobeamolecularstructuresufficientto

withstandthelocalenvironmentandthatalsoencouragestheemergenceofcopies

ofitselfoutoftheatomsfloatingaroundinthethermodynamicnoise.Thiscan

happenbytemplating,catalyzingorotherwiseproducingcopiesofitself.You

probablydonthavetowaitmorethan500millionyears,oncethechemical

constituentsoftheearlyEarthwerearoundforthistostarttohappen.Onceitdoes

happen,iterationofthesameprocesswillproducemoreandmoreadaptation,at

greaterandgreaterexpense,justasthe2dlawrequires.

Theimportantthingtonoticeaboutthisscenarioformakingadaptationsis

thatitistheonlyonethatphysicswillpermit,andthatitistheprocessofnatural

selectionthatDarwindiscovered.Theonlywaythefirstoranyadaptationcanarise

isbyblindvariation:thatistheonlyphysicallypossiblesourceofadaptationthat

the2dlawwillallow.Itwontbealikelyoutcomeandcertainlynotcommoninany

universeaslargeasourown.Oncethemerestsliverofanadaptationemergesby

dumbluck,theonlywayitcanpersistisifitwithstandsthevicissitudesof

environmentalfiltrationtheassaultonorderlinessthatthe2dlawenjoins.Since

nothinglastsforever,notevendiamonds,theonlywaytheinitialadaptation-kind

canpersistisbymultiplyingitsinstances,againatgreatcostinincreasingentropy.

Butoncetheprocessgetsstarted,therestishistoryinthiscase,naturalhistory.

20Ofcourse,thefactthatthe2dlawistheoddmanoutwhenitcomestosymmetry

hassuggestedtomanyphilosophersofphysicsthatitisnolawafterall,despitethefactthatitsupportscounterfactualswiththebestofthem.Dontmentionthisto

Jerry.

7/27/2019 alex4.pdf

20/24

20

So,itstheoperationofthelawsofphysicsonlocalconditionsthatproduces

theprocessofblindvariationandenvironmentalfiltrationthatsculptsadaptations.

Thatistheonlythingalladaptationshaveincommon.Whatdistinguishesthem

fromoneanotherarethelocalconditionsinwhichtheirincipientformsemerged,

thelocalconditionsinwhichtheseformswereimproved,andthelocalconditionsin

whichtheywereworsenedandeventuallybecameextinct.

TogetthecausalcounterfactualsthatDarwinismreallyneedstosupportto

comeouttrue,allyouneedarethelawsofphysicsoperatingonboundary

conditions.Ofcourseyouwillneedlotsoftheselawsandlotsofdetailaboutthe

boundaryconditionstogetthedetailsright.Toillustrateletsconsiderthetwo

counterfactualsabouthememoleculesthatDarwinreallyneedstogetright:

Itshouldbetruethat

Ifamoleculedidntbindsoxygenwell,thentherewouldbeselection-against

itspresenceinmetazoans

Andfalsethat

Ifamoleculedidntreflectredlight,thentherewouldbeselection-againstits

presenceinmetazoans

Sowhydoesthebinding-oxygencounterfactualcomeouttrueandthereflectingred

lightcounterfactualcomeoutfalse?Well,giventhephysicalandchemicallawsthat

drivetheprocessofrespiration,andthelocalenvironmentalconditionsonEarth

underwhichbeingaerobicevolvedtobealmost(butnotquite)universalamong

metazoans,variationsthatenhanceoxygenbindingamongthemwouldleadtomore

off-springandonesthatreduceitwouldleadtofewer.Thesamealmostuniversal

claimcannotbemadeformoleculesthatreflectredlightbetterorworsethaniron-

complexmoleculeslikehemoglobin.Nolawsaboutselection-foroperating,because

therearenolawsofselection,-foror-against.Noneneededeither.Thelawsofphysicalchemistryoperatingonlocalconditionsdoallthework.Justcheckoutany

textbookofmolecularbiology.

WhatabouttheFodoresquesoundingproblemthatwhenblindvariationand

environmentalfiltrationresultinchangesinthefrequencyofoxygen-binding

moleculesinmetazoans,theyalsoresultinchangesinthefrequencyofoxygen

7/27/2019 alex4.pdf

21/24

21

bindingorhexedmoleculesinmetazoans.(Ahexedmoleculeisonethathas8

protons,8neutronsandhasbeenblessedbyaqualifiedwitchcraftpractitioner.)

Well,thismaybeaproblemforthetheoryofnaturalselection,butitsalsoa

problemforeveryotherlaweverpromulgatedinscience.Itisthegoodoldproblem

ofcraftingaprincipleofempiricalmeaningfulnessthatwillenableustotellthe

scientificwheatfromthenon-scientificchaff.Wecanemployhexingtomake

troubleforanytheoryinanysciencetryingtojustifyitsexplanatoryclaimsorits

descriptionofitsexplanantia.

OnemightbetemptedtothinkthatthereisadistinctputativeDarwinian

law-likestatementthatidentifieswhatalladaptationshavetohaveincommon:they

allresultfromtheoperationofthesocalledPrincipleofNaturalSelection:

PNSIfaisfitterthanb,thenprobablyawillhavemoredescendentsthanb.

ThePNSisaprettynotoriousboneofcontentioninthephilosophyofbiology.

Philosophershavetakenalmosteveryconceivablesideofthequestionsofwhether

itsanypartofDarwinstheory,whetheritsalawornot,andifsohowitscrucial

termsfitterthan,andprobablyaretobeunderstood,aswellasitsrelationsto

itssubstitutioninstances,especiallyonesthatseemtomakeitcomeoutfalse.The

longandtheshortofthisdebateisthatwhoisrightaboutthesemattersturns

prettymuchonwhatyoudecideaboutthemeaningsofthosetwoterms,fitterthan

andprobably.Iffitterthanisanaccountingterm,whichconveniently

summarizesalltheactuallocalcausalfactorsthatdeterminedemographicshifts

fromgenerationtogenerationamonglargepopulations,thentheargumentthatthe

PNSisadefinitionaltruthbecomesprettycompelling.21Thewidelyheld

21ThisisSobersapproachinThePhilosophyofBiology(Boulder,WestviewPress,1993).ItmakesaproblemforphilosopherslikeMatthen,Lewens,WalshandAriew

whoinvokethe necessary truth in explanations of contingent facts. See Matthen, M., andAriew, A., 2002, Two ways of thinking about fitness and natural selectionJournal of

Philosophy, 99: 5583, and Denis M. Walsh, Andre Ariew, Tim Lewens (2002), TheTrials of Life: Natural Selection and Random Drift.Philosophy of Science 69 (3):452-

473.

7/27/2019 alex4.pdf

22/24

22

probabilisticpropensitydefinitionoffitness22isanotherreasonfortreatingthePNS

asadefinition:Sounderstood,theantecedentmakesaclaimaboutthe

probabilisticallyexpectednumberofoff-springandtheconsequentmakesaclaim

abouttheobjectivechancesofcertaindemographicoutcomes.Dependingonhow

thesetwotypesofprobabilityarerelated,thePNSsailsveryclosetothewindsof

analyticity.

OnewaytopreservethenomologicalstatusofthePNSistotreatfitnessasan

undefinedterm(foramultiplyrealizedproperty)inthetheoryofnaturalselection

andseekitsempiricalinterpretationfromecologicalcontexttocontext.Interpreting

thePNSasalawabouttheconsequencesofarelationshipbetweenorganisms,or

whateverreplicates,andenvironmentsthatismultiplyrealizable,andhighly

contextsensitive.Butthisinterpretationdoesnthavemanyoperationaladvantages.

Thatisprobablythereasonhardlyanyonebutthepresentauthorhasever

advocatedit.23Inthepresentconnectionitishoweverquiteilluminating.Forthis

wayofthinkingaboutfitnessandthePNSshowsthatthereisnothingthatallcases

ofselectionhaveincommon.Fitnessis,asJerrywouldputit,contextdependent

becauseitsmultiplyrealized.ThiswayofthinkingaboutfitnessmakesthePNSinto

oneofJerrysspecialSciencelaws,trueonlyceterisparibusforalimiteddomain,

withoutanypredictivepowerorrelevancetobroadcounterfactuals,andcertainly

notalawthatcanbereducedtophysicallaws.

Tosummarize,Itsjustamistaketosupposethatatheoryofnaturalselection

shouldberepletewithgeneralizationsaboutwhichecologicalvariablesdetermine

therelativefitnessofphenotypes.Theidea,saysJerry,isthatitsecological

22ThisapproachoriginateswithJohnBeattyandSusanMills,ThePropensity

InterpretationofFitness.PhilosophyofScience1979,46:263-286,andhasbeenendorsed by Brandon, Sober, and many others. But see Beatty and Finsen (nee Mills),Rethinking the propensity interpretation in Ruse. M. (ed.), What Philosophy of Biology

Is, Boston: Kluwer, 1989 for revisionist doubts. Elliott Sobers own doubts about thepropensity definition are expressed in The Two Faces of Fitness. In R. Singh, D. Paul,

C. Krimbas, and J. Beatty (eds.), Thinking about Evolution: Historical, Philosophical,

and PoliticalPerspectives,Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress,2000.23Fitness,JournalofPhilosophy,1983

7/27/2019 alex4.pdf

23/24

23

lawslawsthatapplybyvirtueofacreaturesexogenousrelationsthatsupport

counterfactualsaboutwhichtraitsthecreaturewouldbeselectedforifithadthem.

[p.128]No,no,no.Jerry,youdontunderstandbiology.InFodor-speak,biologyisa

sciencewithoutitsownproprietarylaws,justlikealltheotherspecialsciences.

NowthatwehavesettledJerryshashtheonehesmadeoutofthetheory

ofnaturalselectioninitshomebaseofphylogeneticevolution,wecangobacktohis

originalargumentsagainstteleosemantics,andconsiderwhatweshouldmakeof

them.

Firstthingtonoticeisthatafter50yearsorsooftryingtocomeupwitha

purelycausaltheoryofpsychologicalcontentthatiscompletelysemanticsfree,no

onehasyetsucceeded.AndthatincludesJerrysownbelovedasymmetricalcausal

dependencetheory.24Physicalismdictatesthatpsychologicalstatesandprocesses

thathaveintentionalcontent,arejustupgradedneuralstatesthattrackthe

proximateandnon-proximateenvironmentwithadiscriminatingenoughsensitivity

toqualifyasrepresentations.ofparticularstatesofaffairs.Whatcountsas

discriminatingenoughsensitivityisrelativetothefunctionoftheneurological

structuresthatembodiestherepresentation.Since(paceJerry)functionsare

selectedeffectsthatalreadymakesteleosemanticstheonlypossiblecandidatefora

theoryofcontentthatisitselfintentionalityfree,thatsatisfiesthephysicalist

demandthatintentionalcontentbeupgradednonintentionalcontent,onpainof

beggingthequestionofhowintentionalityispossible.

ThereasonteleosemanticsistheonlygameintownisthatDarwiniannatural

selectionistheonlywaytogettheappearanceofpurposewhereverinnatureit

rearsitsprettylittlehead,andthatincludesinsidethebrain.Aswesawabove,

physicsexcludesallsourcesoftheappearanceofpurposeexceptblindvariationand

environmentalfiltration.If,asisobvious,themostminimalfunctionalismaboutthe

24Adams, F. and Aizawa, K., Fodorian Semantics, in S. Stich and T.Warfield (eds.),Mental Representations, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1994, pp. 223242, and

Adams, F. and Aizawa, K., X Means X: Fodor/Warfield Semantics,Minds and

Machines, 4 (1994): 215231.

7/27/2019 alex4.pdf

24/24

24

mindisright,thenintentionalstateslikebeliefanddesirehavetohaveafunction

usuallytoproduceword-to-worldfitorworld-to-wordfit.So,evenifthewordsare

morphemesinaFodoresquelanguageofthought,thereisstillnooptionbuttogo

teleosemantic.Wehavetotreattheneuralcontent(flyatx,y,z,t)asamatterof

Darwinianshapingoftherelevantneuralcircuitsthatcontrolfrogtongueflicking.

Thesecircuitshavetohavebeenthevictimofphylogenenticandontogentic

processesofblindvariationandnaturalselection-against.

Ifteleosemanticsistheonlygameintown,andifitcantsolvethedisjunction

problem,thentherightcourseforthephysicalististobitethebullet,togo

eliminativist,atleastuptothepointofdenyingthatneuralstateshaveastheir

contentspecific,particular,determinatestatementswhichattributenon-disjunctive

propertiesandrelationstonon-disjunctivesubjects,Thoughtreallyismuchless

determinatethanlanguageletson.(Thatmakeslanguagemuchlessdeterminate

thanitletsontoo).Thedenialthatthefrog,orweforthatmatter,thinkaboutflies,

insteadofsome(nevertobeexpressedinwords)disjunctionoffliesororisone

thatweshouldtakewiththeutmostseriousness.Thedisjunctionproblemisnotan

objectiontoteleosemantics.Itsafactoflifeforbiologicalcreatureslikeus.

AsforJerry,itturnsouthehasdoneusafavor.Hesshownthatthereal

consequencesofrejectingaDarwinianapproachtothemind,istorejecta

Darwiniantheoryofphylogeneticevolution.Thisforcesustotakeseriouslyanotion

thatotherwisewouldhavenothavemuchofachance:thatwhenitcomestothe

natureofmentalstates,indeterminacyrules.Thisisaninsightthatshouldhavethe

mostbeneficialimpactonfreeingcognitiveneurosciencefromdemandsonthe

adequacyofitstheoriesthatitcouldnevermeet.Maybeitisnotasimportantan

insightastheoneattainedbyrunningamodustollensonEinstein.Butitisan

importantonenonetheless.

AlexRosenberg

CenterforPhilosophyofScience

DukeUniversity