On Pluralism and Competition in Evolutionary Explanations

Abstract

A controversy arose concerning the adaptive significance of clitoral orgasm, disputing whether the presence of the trait in females is explained by appeal to developmental processes or natural selection (Gould, 1987a, b; Alcock, 1987). In response, Sherman (1988) offered a pluralistic solution in terms of levels of analysis in which Gould and Alcock's disagreement was construed as semantic and not substantial. I argue that Sherman's solution is mistaken. I suggest that the nature of the Gould/Alcock dispute is better understood by considering the abstract structure of scientific theories and their role in explanation. This account leads to a representation of science as having a plurality of theoretical models which are integrated piecemeal in the explanation of concrete phenomena.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 46 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.