Request for New Course
EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY
DIVISION OF ACADEMIC AFFAIRS
REQUEST FOR NEW COURSE
DEPARTMENT/SCHOOL: ____HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY___________COLLEGE:
CAS
CONTACT PERSON: ___W. JOHN KOOLAGE________________________________________________________________________
CONTACT PHONE:
734-487-1018
CONTACT EMAIL:
WKOOLAGE@EMICH.EDU
REQUESTED START DATE: TERM__FALL___________YEAR__2013_________
A. Rationale/Justification for the Course
Philosophy of the Life Sciences focuses the lens of philosophic inquiry on a variety of contemporary and emerging
sciences. Life Sciences such as Biology, Psychology, and Environmental Science have recently enjoyed an explosion
in knowledge generation and have developed a number of new methods of inquiry and methodological tools.
Philosophy of Science provides at least three important lines of inquiry when it comes to the generation of knowledge
and knowledge related methods. First, philosophic questions can sometimes be answered by advances in other
branches of knowledge production (such as the Life Sciences); understanding innovations in the Life Sciences can shed
light on philosophic questions, including but not limited to, what is the nature and relation of mind and body, what is
the nature of knowledge, and what is the logic of science (if there is one)? Second, philosophy is, at its core, a
discipline engaged in examining normative concepts and claims. In this capacity, philosophic inquiry into the various
sciences can (and does) address the questions regarding what counts as good science, not in the moral sense of good
(such as, ‘this science enhances human well being’) but in the epistemic sense (such as, ‘these methods produce better
knowledge than these methods). In fact, knowledge generation is more likely using methods like double blind studies,
peer review, controlled experiment, improved statistical tools, and so on. A central question in philosophy of science is
when are these methods appropriately employed, when do they get things wrong, when are some better than others, can
improvements to these methods be made by examining the fundamental logic behind them. Put in a slightly different
way, Philosophy of Science investigates the idea of “successful” inquiry within a scientific context; further, it can be
employed to “correct” unsuccessful lines of inquiry within a scientific context. Third, philosophic inquiry has, at its
core, the investigation of concepts and the role of these concepts in clear thinking within a particular domain. The Life
Sciences have introduced a number of critical concepts to our market place of ideas, including the following: species,
selection, neural nets, belief as electrochemical pulse, culture, ecosystem, fitness, health, and so on. These concepts,
among many others, can be examined for coherence, enhanced by filling in missing details, checked against other
concepts in the theory for logical relationships, and so on. Philosophy of Science in particular is aimed at
understanding the relations among the concepts of a theory, the relation of these concepts to the world, and also the
application of these concepts outside of their original domain. Put in a very general way, philosophy of science is
directed at the conceptual and methodological presuppositions of science and/or particular sciences.
B. Course Information
1. Subject Code and Course Number:
581 (to be cross listed with 481-W)
2. Course Title: Philosophy of the Life Sciences
3. Credit Hours:
3
4. Repeatable for Credit? Yes_______
No__x____
5. Catalog Description (Limit to approximately 50 words.):
Miller, New Course
Sept. 09
If “Yes”, how many total credits may be earned?_______
New Course Form
This course will focus on philosophical issues relevant to one or more of the following topic areas: the concepts
and methods of the Life Sciences (Biology, Psychology, etc.), the biological possibility of altruism, the nature of
selection, whether there are psychological laws, the nature of empathy, the reducibility of mental phenomena, and the
nature of justification in the Life Sciences.
6. Method of Delivery (Check all that apply.)
a. Standard (lecture/lab)
On Campus
x
Off Campus
b. Fully Online
c. Hybrid/ Web Enhanced
7. Grading Mode:
Normal (A-E)
x
Credit/No Credit
8. Prerequisites: Courses that MUST be completed before a student can take this course. (List by Subject Code, Number and Title.)
9. Concurrent Prerequisites:
Code, Number and Title.)
Courses listed in #5 that MAY also be taken at the same time as a student is taking this course. (List by Subject
10. Corequisites: Courses that MUST be taken at the same time as a student in taking this course.
(List by Subject Code, Number and
Title.)
11. Equivalent Courses. A student may not earn credit for both a course and its equivalent. A course will count as a repeat if an equivalent
course has already been taken. (List by Subject Code, Number and Title)
12. Course Restrictions:
a. Restriction by College. Is admission to a specific College Required?
College of Business
Yes
No
x
College of Education
Yes
No
x
b. Restriction by Major/Program. Will only students in certain majors/programs be allowed to take this course?
Yes
No
x
If “Yes”, list the majors/programs
Miller, New Course
Sept. ‘09
Page 2 of 12
New Course Form
c. Restriction by Class Level Check all those who will be allowed to take the course:
Undergraduate
Graduate
All undergraduates_______
All graduate students__x__
Freshperson
Certificate
Sophomore
Masters
Junior
Specialist
Senior
x
Doctoral
Second Bachelor___x_____
UG Degree Pending_____
Post-Bac. Tchr. Cert._____
Low GPA Admit_______
Note: If this is a 400-level course to be offered for graduate credit, attach Approval Form for 400-level Course for Graduate
Credit. Only “Approved for Graduate Credit” undergraduate courses may be included on graduate programs of study.
Note: Only 500-level graduate courses can be taken by undergraduate students. Undergraduate students may not register for
600-level courses
d. Restriction by Permission. Will Departmental Permission be required?
Yes
No
(Note: Department permission requires the department to enter authorization for every student registering.)
13. Will the course be offered as part of the General Education Program?
Yes
No
x
x
If “Yes”, attach Request for Inclusion of a Course in the General Education Program: Education for Participation in the Global Community
form. Note: All new courses proposed for inclusion in this program will be reviewed by the General Education Advisory Committee. If this
course is NOT approved for inclusion in the General Education program, will it still be offered? Yes
No
C. Relationship to Existing Courses
Within the Department:
14. Will this course will be a requirement or restricted elective in any existing program(s)? Yes
No
x
If “Yes”, list the programs and attach a copy of the programs that clearly shows the place the new course will have in the curriculum.
Program
Required
Restricted Elective
Program
Required
Restricted Elective
15. Will this course replace an existing course? Yes
No
x
16. (Complete only if the answer to #15 is “Yes.”)
a. Subject Code, Number and Title of course to be replaced:
b. Will the course to be replaced be deleted?
Yes
No
17. (Complete only if the answer #16b is “Yes.”) If the replaced course is to be deleted, it is not necessary to submit a Request for
Graduate and Undergraduate Course Deletion.
a. When is the last time it will be offered?
Term
Year
b. Is the course to be deleted required by programs in other departments?
Contact the Course and Program Development Office if necessary.
Yes
No
Miller, New Course
Sept. ‘09
Page 3 of 12
New Course Form
c. If “Yes”, do the affected departments support this change?
Yes
No
If “Yes”, attach letters of support. If “No”, attach letters from the affected department explaining the lack of support, if available.
Outside the Department: The following information must be provided. Contact the Course and Program Development office for
assistance if necessary.
18. Are there similar courses offered in other University Departments?
If “Yes”, list courses by Subject Code, Number and Title
Yes
No
x
19. If similar courses exist, do the departments in which they are offered support the proposed course?
Yes
No
If “Yes”, attach letters of support from the affected departments. If “No”, attach letters from the affected department explaining the lack of
support, if available.
D. Course Requirements
20. Attach a detailed Sample Course Syllabus including:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Course goals, objectives and/or student learning outcomes
Outline of the content to be covered
Student assignments including presentations, research papers, exams, etc.
Method of evaluation
Grading scale (if a graduate course, include graduate grading scale)
Special requirements
Bibliography, supplemental reading list
Other pertinent information.
NOTE: COURSES BEING PROPOSED FOR INCLUSION IN THE EDUCATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE GLOBAL
COMMUNITY PROGRAM MUST USE THE SYLLABUS TEMPLATE PROVIDED BY THE GENERAL EDUCATION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE. THE TEMPLATE IS ATTACHED TO THE REQUEST FOR INCLUSION OF A COURSE IN THE
GENERAL EDUCATION PROGRAM: EDUCATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY FORM.
E. Cost Analysis (Complete only if the course will require additional University resources.
Fill in Estimated Resources for the
sponsoring department(s). Attach separate estimates for other affected departments.)
Estimated Resources:
Year One
Year Two
Year Three
Faculty / Staff
$_________
$_________
$_________
SS&M
$_________
$_________
$_________
Equipment
$_________
$_________
$_________
Total
$_________
$_________
$_________
F. Action of the Department/School and College
1. Department/School
Miller, New Course
Sept. ‘09
Page 4 of 12
New Course Form
Vote of faculty: For ____6______
Against _____0_____
Abstentions _____0_____
(Enter the number of votes cast in each category.)
Richard Nation
Department Head/School Director Signature
10 September 2012
Date
2. College/Graduate School
A. College
College Dean Signature
Date
B. Graduate School (if Graduate Course)
Graduate Dean Signature
Date
G. Approval
Associate Vice-President for Academic Programming Signature
Miller, New Course
Sept. ‘09
Date
Page 5 of 12
New Course Form
Philosophy of the Life Sciences – Phil 581
W. John Koolage
Course Description
Philosophy of the Life Sciences focuses the lens of philosophic inquiry on a variety of contemporary and emerging
sciences. Life Sciences such as Biology, Psychology, and Environmental Science have recently enjoyed an explosion
in knowledge generation and have developed a number of new methods of inquiry and methodological tools.
Philosophy of Science provides at least three important lines of inquiry when it comes to the generation of knowledge
and knowledge related methods:
First, philosophic questions can sometimes be answered by advances in other branches of knowledge
production (such as the Life Sciences); understanding innovations in the Life Sciences can shed light on
philosophic questions.
Second, philosophy is, at its core, a discipline engaged in examining “goodness”. In this capacity, philosophic
inquiry into the various sciences can (and does) address the questions regarding what counts as good science,
not in the moral sense of good (such as, ‘this science enhances human well being’) but in the epistemic sense
(such as, ‘these methods produce better knowledge than these methods). Put in a slightly different way,
Philosophy of Science investigates the idea of “successful” inquiry within a scientific context; further, it can
be employed to “correct” unsuccessful lines of inquiry within a scientific context.
Third, philosophic inquiry has, at its core, the investigation of concepts and the role of these concepts in clear
thinking within a particular domain. The Life Sciences have introduced a number of critical concepts to our
market place of ideas, including the following: species, selection, neural nets, belief as electrochemical pulse,
culture, ecosystem, fitness, health, and so on. The concepts can (and will) be evaluated, compared, analyzed,
questioned, and improved by identifying their relations to other concepts, their role in theory, and their
relation to the world itself.
This course represents a philosophic examination of the concepts and methods of the Life Sciences. It focuses
primarily on the second and third applications of philosophy of science. Topics include the biological possibility of
altruism, the use of simplicity in cladistics, the nature of selection, whether there are biological laws, whether there are
psychological laws, the nature of empathy, the reducibility of mental phenomena, and the nature of explanation,
justification, and methods of inquiry in the Life Sciences.
This course is a writing intensive course in the philosophy program. Students will write 2 take-home essay exams and
a substantial philosophical paper. The essay exams are devoted to understanding and critiquing arguments put forward
by someone else. The substantial paper is a reasoned defense of a thesis. Students will choose an issue with serious
philosophic considerations form among the methods and concepts of the Life Sciences, formulate a thesis and defend
that thesis.
Required Textbooks
1)
2)
3)
4)
Elliott Sober, Philosophy of Biology, Westview Press, 2nd edition Elliott Sober (ed.), Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology, MIT Press, 3rd edition (Aka: CI) Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, reprinted by Harvard University Press George Botterill and Peter Carruthers, The Philosophy of Psychology, Cambridge University Press Miller, New Course
Sept. ‘09
Page 6 of 12
New Course Form
Assignments, Exams, and Whatnot
The class will be graded on the standard EMU grading scale. I do not grade on a curve, though I do sometimes adjust
grades (never down) on the basis of calibration issues. The assessment tools for the class are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Long Paper – worth 35% Presentations – 15% ((1) group, reading presentation, (2) paper presentation) Midterm Exams – worth 15% each Participation – 20% (includes QCCs) Graduate Level Assessment
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Final Paper – worth 35% Presentations – 10% (paper presentation) Midterm Exam – 15% Participation – 20% (includes QCCs) Long paper – 15% Grading Scale
92-100 A; 89-91 A-; 87-88 B+; 83-86 B; 80-82 B-; 77-79 C+; 73-76 C; 70-72 C-; 67-70 D+; 60-66 D; 59-0 F
It should be noted that for students taking the 581 (graduate) branch of the class, D (including D+) is a failing grade
and it will be converted to an F.
Course Goals
1) Students should be able to present and critically evaluate the basics of Evolutionary Biology, including the nature of selection, fitness values, adaptationism, phylogenic inference, classical Mendelian genetics, and functional analysis. 2) Students should be able to critically evaluate the dispute between evolutionary theory and creationism. As well, they should be able to draw out of this dispute several lessons regarding the nature of science, including the nature of testability and the scientific boundary regarding metaphysical questions. 3) Students should be able to present and critically evaluate the basics of contemporary psychology, including the nature of mind reading, the concepts involved in the basics of modularity and nativisim, and the relation of modern psychological theories and folk-­‐psychology. 4) Students should have a conversational knowledge of Darwin’s theory of evolution, the epistemological basics of induction, the nature of testability, and the use and description of probabilistic reasoning. 5) Students should develop skills in philosophical writing, basic dialectic methods, and the presentation of arguments and ideas in a way that fits with practice in contemporary, professional philosophy. 6) For Graduate Level Credit: Graduate students should display mastery of philosophic writing skills, producing a final paper that meets publication level demands, addresses a narrow, defensible, yet interesting thesis. The paper should address a contemporary dispute and reference key articles in the literature. QCCs
Part of your participation grade will be determined by a short written feedback device, known as the QCC.
QCC stands for Question, Comment, or Criticism. You will be expected to turn in a QCC at the end of every class.
While this is helpful in evaluating participation for more reserved students and bolstering the participation grades of
those who are more outspoken, the main purpose of the QCC is to help guide lectures by identifying topics of interest
and of difficulty. To complete a QCC, a student must turn in a sheet (or piece of paper sizable enough to not be easily
lost in a stack) that has at least two, two sentence questions, comments, or criticisms (in any combination); of course, if
you write longer QCCs, you will get more credit toward your participation grade
Accommodations
It is my goal that this class be an accessible and welcoming experience for all students, including those with
disabilities that may impact their learning in this class. If anyone believes they may have trouble participating or
effectively demonstrating learning in this course, please meet with me (with or without a Disability Resource Center
Miller, New Course
Sept. ‘09
Page 7 of 12
New Course Form
(DRC) accommodation letter) to discuss reasonable options or adjustments. During our discussion, I may suggest the
possibility/necessity of your contacting the DRC (240 Student Center; 734-487-2470 ; swd_office@emich.edu ) to talk
about academic accommodations. You are welcome to talk to me at any point in the semester about such issues, but it
is always best if we can talk at least one week prior to the need for any modifications. No retroactive accommodations
are possible.
Plagiarism & Other Critical Academic Policies It is important for you to note that plagiarism is a very serious offense that will not be tolerated – the penalty for plagiarism can include expulsion from the university. Expect no sympathy if you commit plagiarism. You are expected to know what plagiarism is and take all required steps to avoid it. If you need a refresher on this sort of thing, please consult this excellent webpage, where you will find pretty much everything you need regarding plagiarism: http://www.emich.edu/library/help/integratingsources.php. Academic policies can be found in the University Catalogues available through the Office of the Registrar and online at: http://catalog.emich.edu/. Be sure to review the University’s policy on academic dishonesty if you have not already. Academic dishonesty may result in an ‘E’ in the course and referral to Student Judicial Services. The policy can be found at the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards web site at: http://www.emich.edu/sjs/. In addition to plagiarism as defined by University guidelines, work used or created for other classes will not be counted towards your grade. FERPA
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act is a federal law designated to protect the privacy of a student’s
education records and academic work. All files, records, and academic work completed within this course are
considered educational records and are protected under FERPA. Exceptions will only be given when there is explicit,
written, and signed consent. Verbal consent or email is insufficient.
In Class Discussion My teaching style is discussion based; thus, the class will be made up of some short lectures by me and a lot of discussion by you. You should come to class ready to exercise your considerable philosophical muscle and be prepared to listen to your classmates. Philosophy is generally done by dialectic method, which we will pursue vigorously; the truth can be gleaned from cooperative but difficult discussion, belief revision, and theory generation. Keep this in mind. Classroom Etiquette
Of course, it would be nice if everyone hung on my every word. However, since that is not likely to be the case, I
would like to pretend it is a possibility. As a result, please don’t do anything in class that would lead me to believe it is
impossible that you could be interested in what I have spent time preparing for you. That is, don’t answer your cell
phone, don’t read a newspaper, don’t be snoring, etc.
University policy prohibits firearms, explosives, alcoholic beverages, controlled substances, and behavior intended to
threaten or intimidate others; consequently, you should avoid such practices that may lead to a violation of this policy.
Do not engage in any behavior that could be construed as offensive or threatening to a reasonable human being.
As in all matters, we are all expected to uphold codes of conduct as determined by EMU. See www.emich.edu/student
conduct/ for regarding the student code of conduct.
Topics and Readings Outline
This is an overview of what I think we should cover in this class. It is unlikely that we will cover it all. Philosophy of
science, especially when directed to particular sciences, is a broad and deep area of study. Thus, we should not be too
upset about how far we get; as the old adage goes, it is the journey and not the destination that matters.
Miller, New Course
Sept. ‘09
Page 8 of 12
New Course Form
As for reading, I suggest you read the required stuff right before we start in on that topic. Of course, you will probably
have to read this stuff more than once (even the best of us must do that), so read it again after we’ve talked about the
material in lecture and/or discussion. This way you’ll be prepared to ask questions that will help you learn.
Week 1 – Basics
Topics: Logic, Probability, Evidence, and Biology Basics
Sober, Philosophy of Biology, Chapter 1 and 2
Eells, “Probability.” (In Probabilistic Causality, Cambridge University Press, 1991)
Darwin, Origin of Species, Introduction, Chapters 3, 4, 6, 13, 14
Paley, Natural Theology, Chapter 1
Weeks 2 through 5 – Evolutionary Biology
Topics: Evolution, Fitness, Functional Analysis, Testability, Group Selection, and The Tree of Life
Sober, Philosophy of Biology, Chapter 3, 4, 5, and 6
Gould and Lewontin, “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm” (In CI)
Maynard Smith, “Optimization Theory in Evolution” (In CI)
Sober, “What’s Wrong with Intelligent Design?” Quarterly Review of Biology. 2007
Cummins, “Functional Analysis” (In CI)
Wilson, “Levels of Selection” (In CI)
Felsenstein, “The Detection of Phyologeny” (In CI)
Mishler and Donoghue, “Species Concepts” (In CI)
Sterelny and Kitcher, “The Return of the Gene.” Journal of Philosophy, 1988
Weeks 6 though 8 – Biology’s Bulging Boundaries
Topics: Biology’s place among the sciences, the relation of ethics to the biological sciences, Evolutionary Psychology,
Cultural Evolution
Fodor, “Special Sciences” Synthese, 1974, Vol. 28
Ruse and Wilson, “Moral Philosophy as Applied Science” (In CI)
Kitcher, “Four Ways of ‘Biologicizing’ Ethics” (In CI)
Sober, Philosophy of Biology, Chapter 7
Cosmides and Tooby, “From Evolution to Behavior” (In J. Dupre (Ed.), The latest on the best: Essays on evolution and
optimality. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press)
Fodor, The Modularity of Mind, MIT Press, 1983 (excerpts)
Sober, “Models of Cultural Evolution” (In CI)
Weeks 9 through 12 – Philosophy of Psychology
Topics: Folk Psychology, Nativism, Modularity, Mind Reading, Mental Content, and Intelligence
Botterill and Carruthers, The Philosophy of Psychology, Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4
Dennett, “Can Machines Think?” (1990)
Turing, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence”, Mind, Vol. LIX, 1950
Skinner, Science and Human Behavior, 1953 (excerpts)
Clark, “Embodied, situated and distributed cognition.” W. Bechtel, G. Graham, Editors , A Companion to Cognitive
Science, Basil Blackwell (1999)
Clark and Chalmers, “The Extended Mind”, Analysis, Vol. 58, 1998
Miller, New Course
Sept. ‘09
Page 9 of 12
New Course Form
Bibliography for Philosophy of the Life Sciences
Botterill, G. and Carruthers, P. ( 1999) The Philosophy of Psychology, Cambridge University Press
Brandon, R. N., (ed.) (1996) Concepts and Methods in Evolutionary Biology, Cambridge University Press
Brandon, R. N. and Burian, R. M. (eds.) (1984) Genes, Organisms, and Populations, MIT Press
Buller, D. (2005) Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature, MIT Press
Buss, D. (2007) Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, Allyn and Bacon
Buss, D. M., M. G. Hasleton, et al. (1998) “Adaptations, Exaptations and Spandrels”, American Psychologist
Clark, A. (1999) “Embodied, situated and distributed cognition.” W. Bechtel, G. Graham, Editors , A Companion to
Cognitive Science, Blackwell
Clark, A. and Chalmers, D. (1998) “The Extended Mind”, Analysis
Cosmides, L. and Tooby, J. (1987) “From Evolution to Behavior” In J. Dupre (Ed.), The latest on the best: Essays on
evolution and optimality. Cambridge University Press
Cowie, F., 1999, What's Within? Nativism Reconsidered, New York: Oxford University Press
Darwin, C. (1859) Origin of Species
Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Dennett, D. (1990) “Can Machines Think?”
Dennett, D. (1995) Darwin's Dangerous Idea, New York: Simon and Schuster
Dupre, J. (2001) Human Nature and the Limits of Science, Clarendon Press
Eells, E. (1991) Probabilistic Causality, Cambridge University Press
Fodor, J. (1983) The Modularity of Mind, MIT Press
Fodor, J. (2000) The mind doesn't work that way: the scope and limits of computational psychology, MIT Press
Gould, S. J. and R. Lewontin (1979) “The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A critique of the
adaptationist programme” Proceedings of the Royal Society London
Grantham, T. and S. Nichols, 1999, “Evolutionary Psychology: Ultimate Explanations and Panglossian Predictions”, in
V. Hardcastle (ed.), Where Biology Meets Psychology, MIT Press
Griffiths, P. E. (2001) “Genetic Information: A Metaphor in Search of a Theory.” Philosophy of Science
Hauser, M. (2006) Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our universal sense of right and wrong, Harper Collins
Hull, D. L. (1974) Philosophy of Biological Science, Prentice-Hall
Miller, New Course
Sept. ‘09
Page 10 of 12
New Course Form
Hull, D. L. and Ruse, M. (2007) The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology, Cambridge University Press
Kitcher, P. (1984) “1953 and all that: a tale of two sciences” Philosophical Review
Laland, K. N. and G. R. Brown (2002) Sense and Nonsense: Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behavior, Oxford
University Press
Lewontin, R. (1998) “The evolution of cognition: Questions we will never answer”, in D. Scarborough and S.
Sternberg (eds.), Methods, Models, and Conceptual Issues, MIT Press
Lloyd, E. A. (1999) “Evolutionary Psychology: The Burdens of Proof”, Biology and Philosophy
Marr, D. (1983) Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual
Information, W.H. Freeman
Machamer, P., Darden, L. et al. (2000) “Thinking about Mechanisms.” Philosophy of Science
MacLaurin, J. and Sterelny, K. (2008) What is Biodiversity? University of Chicago Press
Millikan, R. G. (1984) Language, Thought and Other Biological Categories, MIT Press
Neander, K. (1991) “Functions as selected effects: the conceptual analyst's defense.” Philosophy of Science
Nichols, S. (2004) Sentimental Rules: On the natural foundation of moral judgment, Oxford University Press.
Okasha, S. (2007) Evolution and the Levels of Selection, Oxford University Press.
Orzack, S., and Sober, E., (eds.) (2001) Optimality and Adaptation, Cambridge University Press
Paley, W. (1802) Natural Theology
Pinker, S. (1997) How the Mind Works, W.W. Norton
Pittendrigh, C. S. (1958) “Adaptation, natural selection and behavior.” In A. Roe and G. G. Simpson (eds.), Behavior
and Evolution, Yale University Press
Samuels, R. (1998) “Evolutionary Psychology and the Massive Modularity Hypothesis” British Journal for the
Philosophy of Science
Sarkar, S. (1992) “Models of reduction and categories of reductionism.” Synthese
Sarkar, S. (2005) Biodiversity and Environmental Philosophy: An Introduction, Cambridge University Press
Shapiro, L. A. and W. Epstein (1998) “Evolutionary Theory Meets Cognitive Psychology: A More Selective
Perspective”, Mind and Language
Skinner, B.F. (1953) Science and Human Behavior
Smart, J. J. C. (1959) “Can biology be an exact science?” Synthese
Miller, New Course
Sept. ‘09
Page 11 of 12
New Course Form
Sober, E. (2000) Philosophy of Biology, Westview Press
Sober, E. (ed.), (1993) Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology, MIT Press
Sober, E. (2007) “What’s Wrong with Intelligent Design?” Quarterly Review of Biology
Sober, E. and Wilson, D. S. (1998) Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, Harvard University Press
Sterelny, K. (2003) Thought in a Hostile World: The Evolution of Human Cognition, Blackwell
Sterelny, K. and Kitcher, P. (1988) “The Return of the Gene.” Journal of Philosophy
Stotz, K. and Griffiths, P. E. (2008). “Biohumanities: Rethinking the relationship between biosciences, philosophy and
history of science, and society” Quarterly Review of Biology
Wilson, R. A., (ed.) (1999) Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays, MIT Press
Wimsatt, W. C. (1972) “Teleology and the Logical Structure of Function Statements.” Studies in History and
Philosophy of Science
Wimsatt, W.C. (1976) “Reductive Explanation: A Functional Account” Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science
Association
Wimsatt, W. C. (1980) Reductionistic Research Strategies and Their Biases in the Units of Selection Controversy. In
Nickles, T. (ed.): Scientific Discovery: Case Studies
Wright, L. (1973) “Functions” Philosophical Review
Miller, New Course
Sept. ‘09
Page 12 of 12