Context matters: a response to Autzen and Okasha’s reply to Takacs and Bourrat

Peter Takacs; Pierrick Bourrat

doi:10.1007/s13752-024-00455-7

Context matters: a response to Autzen and Okasha’s reply to Takacs and Bourrat

Peter Takacs^*, Pierrick Bourrat

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

10 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In a recent reply to Takacs and Bourrat’s article (Biol Philos 37:12, 2022), Autzen and Okasha (Biol Philos 37:37, 2022) question our characterization of the relationship between the geometric mean and arithmetic mean measures of fitness. We here take issue with the claim that our characterization falls prey to the mistakes they highlight. Briefly revisiting what Takacs and Bourrat (Biol Philos 37:12, 2022) accomplished reveals that the key issue of difference concerns cases of deterministic but nonconstant growth. Restricting focus to such cases shows that there is in fact no reason for disagreement.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	170-176
Number of pages	7
Journal	Biological Theory
Volume	19
Issue number	3
Early online date	26 Feb 2024
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-024-00455-7
Publication status	Published - Sept 2024

Bibliographical note

Copyright the Author(s) 2024. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

Keywords

Evolutionary theory
Fitness
Growth rate
Philosophy of biology

Access to Document

10.1007/s13752-024-00455-7

Publisher version (open access)Final published version, 703 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{8fd6cbddfb674f2dac50f895e2123159,

title = "Context matters: a response to Autzen and Okasha{\textquoteright}s reply to Takacs and Bourrat",

abstract = "In a recent reply to Takacs and Bourrat{\textquoteright}s article (Biol Philos 37:12, 2022), Autzen and Okasha (Biol Philos 37:37, 2022) question our characterization of the relationship between the geometric mean and arithmetic mean measures of fitness. We here take issue with the claim that our characterization falls prey to the mistakes they highlight. Briefly revisiting what Takacs and Bourrat (Biol Philos 37:12, 2022) accomplished reveals that the key issue of difference concerns cases of deterministic but nonconstant growth. Restricting focus to such cases shows that there is in fact no reason for disagreement.",

keywords = "Evolutionary theory, Fitness, Growth rate, Philosophy of biology",

author = "Peter Takacs and Pierrick Bourrat",

note = "Copyright the Author(s) 2024. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.",

year = "2024",

month = sep,

doi = "10.1007/s13752-024-00455-7",

language = "English",

volume = "19",

pages = "170--176",

journal = "Biological Theory",

issn = "1555-5542",

publisher = "Springer, Springer Nature",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Context matters

T2 - a response to Autzen and Okasha’s reply to Takacs and Bourrat

AU - Takacs, Peter

AU - Bourrat, Pierrick

N1 - Copyright the Author(s) 2024. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

PY - 2024/9

Y1 - 2024/9

N2 - In a recent reply to Takacs and Bourrat’s article (Biol Philos 37:12, 2022), Autzen and Okasha (Biol Philos 37:37, 2022) question our characterization of the relationship between the geometric mean and arithmetic mean measures of fitness. We here take issue with the claim that our characterization falls prey to the mistakes they highlight. Briefly revisiting what Takacs and Bourrat (Biol Philos 37:12, 2022) accomplished reveals that the key issue of difference concerns cases of deterministic but nonconstant growth. Restricting focus to such cases shows that there is in fact no reason for disagreement.

AB - In a recent reply to Takacs and Bourrat’s article (Biol Philos 37:12, 2022), Autzen and Okasha (Biol Philos 37:37, 2022) question our characterization of the relationship between the geometric mean and arithmetic mean measures of fitness. We here take issue with the claim that our characterization falls prey to the mistakes they highlight. Briefly revisiting what Takacs and Bourrat (Biol Philos 37:12, 2022) accomplished reveals that the key issue of difference concerns cases of deterministic but nonconstant growth. Restricting focus to such cases shows that there is in fact no reason for disagreement.

KW - Evolutionary theory

KW - Fitness

KW - Growth rate

KW - Philosophy of biology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85185975270&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/DE210100303

UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/FL170100160

U2 - 10.1007/s13752-024-00455-7

DO - 10.1007/s13752-024-00455-7

M3 - Article

C2 - 39155911

AN - SCOPUS:85185975270

SN - 1555-5542

VL - 19

SP - 170

EP - 176

JO - Biological Theory

JF - Biological Theory

IS - 3

ER -

Context matters: a response to Autzen and Okasha’s reply to Takacs and Bourrat

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

DE210100303: Inheritance and the Emergence of Individuals: From concepts to practice

Cite this

Context matters: a response to Autzen and Okasha’s reply to Takacs and Bourrat

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Projects

DE210100303: Inheritance and the Emergence of Individuals: From concepts to practice

Cite this