BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk//
X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:The concept of fitness in evolutionary biology: a philosophical an
 alysis - Samir Okasha\, University of Bristol
DTSTART:20260521T120000Z
DTEND:20260521T130000Z
UID:TALK244309@talks.cam.ac.uk
CONTACT:131500
DESCRIPTION:Fitness is a fundamental concept in evolutionary biology\, as\
 nit is intimately connected with evolution by natural selection. The term 
 ‘fitness’ entered biological lexicon when Herbert Spencer recommended 
 to Darwin that he use the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ to help exp
 lain how natural selection works. In the course of the 20th century the fi
 tness concept underwent a series of subtle transformations\, thanks to the
  successful mathematization of evolutionary theory\, but it remains centra
 l to evolutionary theory.  Despite this\, the fitness concept is rather el
 usive\, as a number of authors have noted\, seemingly lacking a fully gene
 ral\, precise definition. The concept has been called "subtle"\, "vague"\,
  "impossible to define"\, as having "many meanings"\, "lacking a comprehen
 sive definition"\, and being the object of "conceptual confusion".\nIn the
  light of this situation\, it is not surprising that since the 1970s philo
 sophers of biology have sought to clarify the fitness concept. However the
  philosophical discussions\, though useful in some ways\, generally make i
 nsufficient contact with the technical literature on fitness in evolutiona
 ry theory itself.\n\nThis talk is part of a broader project that re-visits
  the fitness concept\, tries to make sense of the controversies surroundin
 g it\, and to integrate the philosophical and biological discussions. The 
 basic idea is to regard “fitness” as a theoretical term which is to be
  defined via its theoretical role\, that is\, the job that it is meant to 
 do. This sounds simple\; however\, closer inspection shows that there are 
 actually four slightly different “fitness roles”. Moreover\, in a part
 icular evolutionary model\, a given quantity\, definable from the model pa
 rameters\, may realize one of these fitness roles but not others. Taken to
 gether\, this explains why the fitness concept has caused so much confusio
 n\, why the term “fitness” is polysemic in evolutionary biology\, and 
 why theorists can disagree about the “right” fitness measure despite t
 he underlying science not being in dispute.
LOCATION:Part II Lecture Theatre\, Department of Zoology
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR