Cargando…
On geometric mean fitness: a reply to Takacs and Bourrat
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 Bour...
| Autores principales: | , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
| Lenguaje: | English |
| Publicado: |
Springer Netherlands
2022
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9418093/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36042780 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10539-022-09874-x |
| Sumario: | 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. |
|---|