The evolution of Wright’s (1932) adaptive field to contemporary interpretations and uses of fitness landscapes in the social sciences

Gerrits, Lasse; Marks, Peter

doi:10.1007/s10539-014-9450-2

Cited by 18 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 140 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The second-generation models developed by Balietti et al (2015) and Currie and Avin (2019) provide another kind of example, where the models as well as the argumentative goals and the conceptual premises are quite different. Just as Weisberg and Muldoon borrowed their argumentative device (the idea of an adaptive landscape and the techniques to model it) from biology and adapted it to serve their own purposes (Gerrits and Marks 2015), these authors transform the EL framework to suit their purposes. As in the case of Balietti et al, the audiences can be remarkably different too.…”

Section: Modelling Moves Include (But Are Not Limited To)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Argumentative landscapes: the function of models in social epistemology

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We argue that the appraisal of models in social epistemology requires conceiving of them as argumentative devices, taking into account the argumentative context and adopting a family-of-models perspective. We draw up such an account and show how it makes it easier to see the value and limits of the use of models in social epistemology. To illustrate our points, we document and explicate the argumentative role of epistemic landscape models in social epistemology and highlight their limitations. We also claim that our account could be fruitfully used in appraising other models in philosophy and science.

show abstract

Section: Modelling Moves Include (But Are Not Limited To)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Argumentative landscapes: the function of models in social epistemology

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evolutionary spaces have been deployed in other contexts. For example, fitness landscapes and particularly the Kauffman–Levin N–K landscapes spread to the social sciences (reviewed in [ 3 , 63 ]). Raup's theoretical morphospace and general principles of network architecture were used to generate a network morphospace spanning food webs to neural and electrical circuits [ 64 ].…”

Section: Evolutionary Spaces: a Bestiarymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Waddington's introduction of the epigenetic landscape extended Wright's metaphor to development [ 2 ]. Evolutionary spaces have also been adopted in social sciences, including economics [ 3 ]. In some cases, the relationship between spaces has received considerable attention, as with genotype–phenotype mapping in small RNAs [ 4 , 5 ] and in empirical studies [ 6 , 7 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The topology of evolutionary novelty and innovation in macroevolution

Erwin

2017

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sewall Wright's fitness landscape introduced the concept of evolutionary spaces in 1932. George Gaylord Simpson modified this to an adaptive, phenotypic landscape in 1944 and since then evolutionary spaces have played an important role in evolutionary theory through fitness and adaptive landscapes, phenotypic and functional trait spaces, morphospaces and related concepts. Although the topology of such spaces is highly variable, from locally Euclidean to pre-topological, evolutionary change has often been interpreted as a search through a pre-existing space of possibilities, with novelty arising by accessing previously inaccessible or difficult to reach regions of a space. Here I discuss the nature of evolutionary novelty and innovation within the context of evolutionary spaces, and argue that the primacy of search as a conceptual metaphor ignores the generation of new spaces as well as other changes that have played important evolutionary roles.This article is part of the themed issue ‘Process and pattern in innovations from cells to societies’.

show abstract

“…Gerrits et al (2014), Barkley Rosser Jr (1999, 2012. In Frenken (2001) and Frenken and Valente (2004) the authors, following Kaufmann's NK model theory, suggested a formalisation of network organisations in searching a complex fitness landscape of technological artefacts and innovations characterised by conflicting constraints due to interdependencies between its constituting elements.…”

Section: Nk Model and Economic Complex Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fitness Landscape and Tax Planning: NK Model for Fiscal Federalism

Faggini¹,

Parziale²

2017

IJEF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper rises from the idea to highlight how traditional models of Fiscal Federalism are not be able to capture adequately the behavioral dynamics of economic systems. We stress the innovative aspects of complexity theory and the premises on which to base the analysis of Fiscal Federalism in this perspective. For this purpose, we consider Fiscal Federalism as a network of economic relationships between different complex adaptive and co-evolving systems, the jurisdictions, linked by strong interdependencies. We will proceed to model a landscape in which co-evolving jurisdictions have to find the optimal path to organize the local tax planning and to optimize their local economy.

show abstract

The evolution of Wright’s (1932) adaptive field to contemporary interpretations and uses of fitness landscapes in the social sciences

Cited by 18 publications

References 140 publications

Argumentative landscapes: the function of models in social epistemology

Argumentative landscapes: the function of models in social epistemology

The topology of evolutionary novelty and innovation in macroevolution

Fitness Landscape and Tax Planning: NK Model for Fiscal Federalism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About