Institute for Interdisciplinary Research - Social Sciences and Humanities Research Department, "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" University of Iaşi, Iaşi, Romania.
Hist Philos Life Sci. 2020 Aug 10;42(3):36. doi: 10.1007/s40656-020-00333-y.
It has become customary in multilevel selection theory to use the same terms (namely "multilevel selection 1" and "multilevel selection 2") to denote both two explanatory goals (explaining why certain individual- and, respectively, group-level traits spread) and two explanatory means (namely, two kinds of group selection we may appeal to in such explanations). This paper spells out some of the benefits that derive from avoiding this terminological conflation. I argue that keeping explanatory means and goals well apart allows us to see that, contrary to a popular recent idea, Price's equation and contextual analysis-the statistical methods most extensively used for measuring the effects of certain evolutionary factors (like individual selection, group selection etc.) on the change in the focal individual trait in multilevel selection scenarios-do not come with built-in notions of group selection and, therefore, the efficacy of these methods at analyzing various kinds of cases does not constitute a basis for deciding how group selection should best be defined. Moreover, contrary to another widely accepted idea, I argue that more than one type of group selection may serve as explanatory means when one's goal is that of explaining the evolution of individual traits in multilevel selection scenarios and I spell out how this explanatory role should be understood.
在多层次选择理论中,人们已经习惯使用相同的术语(即“多层次选择 1”和“多层次选择 2”)来表示两个解释目标(解释为什么某些个体和群体水平的特征会传播)和两个解释手段(即在这种解释中可能诉诸的两种群体选择)。本文阐述了避免这种术语混淆所带来的一些好处。我认为,将解释手段和目标区分开来,可以让我们看到,与最近的一个流行观点相反,普赖斯方程和情境分析——用于衡量某些进化因素(如个体选择、群体选择等)对多层次选择情境中焦点个体特征变化的影响的最广泛使用的统计方法——并没有内在的群体选择概念,因此,这些方法在分析各种情况下的有效性不能作为决定如何最好地定义群体选择的依据。此外,与另一个广泛接受的观点相反,我认为,当目标是解释多层次选择情境中个体特征的进化时,可能有不止一种类型的群体选择可以作为解释手段,我详细说明了这种解释作用应该如何理解。