We compare and contrast two theoretical perspectives on adaptive evolution-the orthodox Modern Synthesis perspective, and the nascent Agential Perspective. To do so, we develop the idea from Rasmus Grønfeldt Winther of a 'countermap', as a means for comparing the respective ontologies of different scientific perspectives. We conclude that the modern Synthesis perspective achieves an impressively comprehensive view of a universal set of dynamical properties of populations, but at the considerable cost of radically distorting the nature of the biological processes that contribute to evolution. For its part, the Agential Perspective offers the prospect of representing the biological processes of evolution with much greater fidelity, but at the expense of generality. Trade-offs of this sort are endemic to science, and inevitable. Recognizing them helps us to avoid the pitfalls of 'illicit reification', i.e. the mistake of interpreting a feature of a scientific perspective as a feature of the non-perspectival world. We argue that much of the traditional Modern Synthesis representation of the biology of evolution commits this illicit reification.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 28 citations exist upstream.