Philosophy Grad: Publications since January 2023

%% Hazelwood, Caleb   
@article{fds373380,
   Author = {Hazelwood, C},
   Title = {An Emerging Dilemma for Reciprocal Causation},
   Journal = {Philosophy of Science},
   Pages = {1-43},
   Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
   Year = {2023},
   Month = {October},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.124},
   Abstract = {<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p>Among advocates
             and critics of the “extended evolutionary synthesis”
             (EES), “reciprocal causation” refers to the view that
             adaptive evolution is a bidirectional phenomenon, whereby
             organisms and environments impinge on each other through
             processes of niche construction and natural selection. I
             argue that reciprocal causation is incompatible with the
             view that natural selection is a metaphysically emergent
             causal process. The emergent character of selection places
             reciprocal causation on the horns of dilemma, and neither
             horn can rescue it. I conclude that proponents of the EES
             must abandon the claim that the process of natural selection
             features in cycles of reciprocal causation.</jats:p>},
   Doi = {10.1017/psa.2023.124},
   Key = {fds373380}
}

@article{fds372667,
   Author = {Hazelwood, C},
   Title = {Newton's “law-first” epistemology and “matter-first”
             metaphysics},
   Journal = {Studies in History and Philosophy of Science},
   Volume = {101},
   Pages = {40-47},
   Publisher = {Elsevier BV},
   Year = {2023},
   Month = {October},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2023.08.005},
   Doi = {10.1016/j.shpsa.2023.08.005},
   Key = {fds372667}
}

@article{fds370035,
   Author = {Hazelwood, C},
   Title = {Review of Charles H. Pence’sThe Causal Structure of
             Natural Selection- Charles H. Pence, The Causal
             Structure of Natural Selection. Elements in the Philosophy
             of Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2021), 75
             pp. $22.00 (paperback).},
   Journal = {Philosophy of Science},
   Volume = {90},
   Number = {3},
   Pages = {750-753},
   Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
   Year = {2023},
   Month = {July},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.53},
   Doi = {10.1017/psa.2023.53},
   Key = {fds370035}
}

@article{fds369252,
   Author = {Hazelwood, C},
   Title = {Reciprocal causation and biological practice},
   Journal = {Biology and Philosophy},
   Volume = {38},
   Number = {1},
   Publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC},
   Year = {2023},
   Month = {February},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10539-023-09895-0},
   Abstract = {Arguments for an extended evolutionary synthesis often
             center on the concept of “reciprocal causation.”
             Proponents argue that reciprocal causation is superior to
             standard models of evolutionary causation for at least two
             reasons. First, it leads to better scientific models with
             more predictive power. Second, it more accurately represents
             the causal structure of the biological world. Simply put,
             proponents of an extended evolutionary synthesis argue that
             reciprocal causation is empirically and explanatorily apt
             relative to competing causal frameworks. In this paper, I
             present quantitative survey data from faculty members in
             biology departments at universities across the United States
             to evaluate this claim. The survey data indicate that a
             majority of the participants do not agree (i.e., most either
             disagree or neither agree nor disagree) that the concept of
             reciprocal causation confers a larger advantage on research
             practices. However, a majority of the participants agree
             that the causal framework of the extended evolutionary
             synthesis more accurately represents the structure of the
             biological world. These results demonstrate that the
             explanatory merits of a conceptual framework and its
             practical utility can come apart in interesting and
             informative ways.},
   Doi = {10.1007/s10539-023-09895-0},
   Key = {fds369252}
}