Thread by @AndrewBuskell

My paper 'Synthesising Arguments and the Extended Evolution Synthesis' is now online: doi.org/10.1016/j.shps…

Brief summary below:

1/8

The paper argues that:

(1) Both advocates and skeptics of the EES have tended to use the language of theory-change;

(2) this frames the debate over the EES in terms of competing, comprehensive packages of theories, and;

(3) that this evaluative framework is not helpful.

2/8

Why is this evaluative framework not helpful? Well, aside from longstanding worries about formal and schematic treatments of theory choice, I suggest that this framing misunderstands the pragmatic and epistemological arguments that EES advocates have been making.

3/8

Developing ideas from Brigandt and Love, I suggest that when we look at the specific research agenda that the EES pursues we are in a better position to evaluate their positive claims and to see where these conflict with the current consensus practice in the life sciences.

4/8

Looking at positive and negative arguments around the concept of niche construction, I show how the above approach (an 'agenda-based approach') can show where the EES motivates empirically fruitful arguments.

5/8

I don't end with either a positive or negative appraisal of the EES--I'm leaving that for future scientific and philosophical work--but close by suggesting that rhetoric on both sides has hampered reflection on the substantive empirical issues at stake.

6/8

Along the way, I discuss the evolution of the turtle carapace, non-genetic inheritance in dung beetles, and coat color in beach mice. So even if you don't agree with the paper, you might learn some cool facts.

7/8

Thanks to all those that discussed these ideas with me: @RachaelBrown42, Adrian Currie, @hacurry, Jean-Baptiste Grodwohl, Tim Lewens, @elmilam, @Armin_Moczek, Anya Plutynski, Jacob Stegenga, Tobias Uller, @nikivermeulen, and John Welch. Thanks as well to @drlynnchiu.

8/8