On geometric mean fitness: a reply to Takacs and Bourrat

Bengt Autzen · Samir Okasha

7 citations0/0 files storedBiology & Philosophy

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Philosophy and History of Science Evolution and Genetic Dynamics Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

Abstract

In a recent paper, Takacs and Bourrat (Biol Philos 37:12, 2022) examine the use of geometric mean reproductive output as a measure of biological fitness. We welcome Takacs and Bourrat's scrutiny of a fitness definition that some philosophers have adopted uncritically. We also welcome Takacs and Bourrat's attempt to marry the philosophical literature on fitness with the biological literature on mathematical measures of fitness. However, some of the main claims made by Takacs and Bourrat are not correct, while others are correct but not for the reasons they give.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

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

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 7 citations exist upstream.

References

2000The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science 2002Thinking about evolution: Historical, philosophical, and political perspectives 1989Rethinking the Propensity Interpretation: A Peek Inside Pandora’s Box1 2022The arithmetic mean of what? A Cautionary Tale about the Use of the Geometric Mean as a Measure of Fitness

Explore the map →

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

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.