Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T06:27:19.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biological Progress and Dominance: A Reply to Janet L. Travis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Maurice J. A. Glickman
Maurice J. A. Glickman*
Affiliation:
Brandeis University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a recent article in Philosophy of Science Janet Travis [13] seeks to refute the argument for evolutionary progressivism which is based on a series of dominant life forms on the grounds that there is no rigorous definition of that concept. In particular she claims that the definitions formulated by Sir Julian Huxley and George Gaylord Simpson fail adequately to exclude any group of organisms. The concept of dominance is therefore alleged to be meaningless and the argument for progress invalid.

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , September 1972 , pp. 383 - 387
Copyright
Copyright © 1972 by The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1] Abercrombie, M., Hickman, C. J. and Johnson, M. L. A Dictionary of Biology. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1966.Google Scholar
[2] Darwin, C. The Origin of Species. New York and Toronto: New American Library (Mentor Edition), 1958.Google Scholar
[3] Eiseley, L. “Man: The Lethal Factor.” American Scientist 51, no. 1 (1963).Google Scholar
[4] Glickman, M. “The Nature of Epiphenomenalism.” The British Journal of Psychology 58, parts 3 and 4 (1967).10.1111/j.2044-8295.1967.tb01102.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Huxley, J. S. Evolution: The Modern Synthesis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1959.Google Scholar
[6] Huxley, T. H. and Huxley, J. S. Touchstone for Ethics. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1947.Google Scholar
[7] Kroeber, A. L. An Anthropologist Looks at History. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966.Google Scholar
[8] Moore, G. E. Principia Ethica. Cambridge: The University Press, 1903.Google Scholar
[9] Sahlins, M. D. and Service, E. R., eds. Evolution and Culture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1960.10.3998/mpub.8980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Service, E. R. Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective. New York: Random House, 1962.Google Scholar
[11] Simpson, G. G. The Meaning of Evolution. Revised ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967.Google Scholar
[12] Spencer, H. Data of Ethics. New York: Lovell, Coryell & Company, 1879.10.1037/11802-000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13] Travis, J. L. “A Criticism of the Use of the Concept of ‘Dominant Group’ in Arguments for Evolutionary Progressivism.” Philosophy of Science 38 (1971): 369–375.10.1086/288378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] White, L. The Science of Culture. New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 1949.Google Scholar