Underdetermination and Evidence in the Developmental Plasticity Debate

Abstract

I identify a controversial hypothesis in evolutionary biology called the plasticity-first hypothesis. I argue that the plasticity-first hypothesis is underdetermined and that the most popular means of studying the plasticity-first hypothesis are insufficient to confirm or disconfirm it. I offer a strategy for overcoming this problem. Researchers need to develop a richer middle-range theory of plasticity-first evolution that allows them to identify distinctive empirical traces of the hypothesis. They can then use those traces to discriminate between rival explanations of evolutionary episodes. The best tools for developing such a middle-range theory are experimental evolution and formal modelling. 1 Introduction2 The Plasticity-First Hypothesis and Its Rivals3 Evidential Disagreements 3.1 Direct and indirect evidence 3.2 Burden of proof4 The Importance of Middle-Range Theory 4.1 Direct observation 4.2 Ancestral–descendant comparisons5 Adjusting Methodological Norms 5.1 Formal modelling and experimental evolution 5.2 An example: selective sweeps 6 Conclusion

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 — 30 citations exist upstream.

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