Papers presented cover: new approaches to evolutionary epistemology, new applications, critical evaluations, and the nature of the mind. Paper edition (unseen), $25.50. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR.

This thesis is concerned with two interrelated sets of problems: How can we have knowledge in a universe of processes? How can knowledge be improved, and how is scientific progress possible? ;To address the epistemological question in conjunction with the ontological is not a common approach in contemporary philosophy of science. I therefore begin the dissertation by arguing that these two areas of philosophy are intimately interrelated, and that the one-sided concentration on epistemological issues has led to an unsatisfactory account (...) of the nature of knowledge. In particular it has led to a conflation of epistemology with methodology. I argue that methodologies carry with themselves certain presuppositions concerning the nature of the world and of human beings. ;I suggest that we should attempt to construct a philosophical system within which epistemology and ontology mutually support one another. Insights derived from modern science provide us with a basis for the construction of such a system. ;I begin this task by arguing that scientific knowledge can be viewed as an extension of perception. Relying on insights derived from Gregory and Piaget I emphasize the constructive characteristics of our perceptual system and argue that they find their counterpart in the constructive nature of modern science. ;Having outlined a constructivist view of knowledge I turn to the discussion of the ontological issues. ;I propose as an alternative the adoption of a metaphysics of processes. I outline such an ontology, basing my model upon ideas derived from Prigogine's research on dissipative structures and Pattee's investigation of hierarchical organization. I explain how dissipative structures create stability in an instable world and link this insight to the constructive features of our perceptual and conceptual systems. ;The resulting model shows how knowledge is possible in the strange world of processes which we probably inhabit. It further shows how knowledge can be improved and what progress through evolution means. This issue is pursued in greater detail in the last part of the dissertation. There I expound Waddington's cybernetic model of evolutionary change and show how it finds its counterpart in cognitive evolution. (shrink)

In this paper, I develop a naturalistic conception of evolutionary progress. I argue that the Waddingtonian notion of adaptability can be embedded meaningfully into a framework which views living things as nonequilibrium structures. This thermodynamic interpretation places great emphasis on the dynamics of environmental change, whereas the classical conceptions are based on equilibrium conceptions of the evolutionary process. What improves in evolution is the ability of living things to stay alive in increasingly heterogeneous environments.

This paper expounds the central tenets of the Austro-German school of evolutionary epistemology and points out that it conflicts in important aspects with Popper's. The conflict arises because some of the members of the above-mentioned school consider induction to be an absolutely central feature of any evolutionary epistemology. Thus the question arises if Poppers 'method of trial-and-error' is still to be considered to be the evolutionary method. The present author suggests that what is being selected for during scientific evolution is (...) our capacity to apply induction appropriately. We learn when to use induction reliably and when to resort to the most elementary of all methods, the method of trial-and-error. (shrink)

It was C.H. Waddington's contention that the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution ought to be amended by imbedding it in a broader theoretical framework which takes the role of the phenotype into account. Waddington's theory alleges the existence of two interlocking feedback circuits between environment and phenotype on the one hand and genotype and phenotype on the other. The resulting dynamical model of evolutionary change gives new meaning to the notion of progress in evolution. In this model natural selection acts directly (...) on the phenotype, thereby influencing the feedback relationships. Better tuning of the feedback relations, however, leads to progress in adaptability which in Waddington's theory replaces the cumbersome concept of progress in adaptation.This paper expounds Waddington's theory and places it into a broader philosophical perspective. (shrink)

In 1941 Konrad Lorenz published a paper with the title “Kant’s Doctrine of the A Priori in the light of Contemporary Biology”. This essay stands as the foundation of the Austro-German School of Evolutionary Epistemology. As indicated by the title of the paper, the Lorenzians attempt to interpret Kantian transcendentalism along biological lines.Lorenz was, however, by no means the first who attempted to biologise Kant. Philosophers and scientists such as Ernst Mach, Henri Poincare, Ludwig Boltzmann and Jean Piaget had made (...) similar points previously. Nevertheless, it remains Lorenz’s achievement to have formulated his thesis explicitly and provided ample empirical evidence in favour of it.Lorenz’s seminal paper remained largely unknown, and even his book on evolutionary epistemology published in 1973 raised little interest among philosophers, particularly in the English-speaking world. Meanwhile several other biologists and philosophers have joined Lorenz in his endeavour to elucidate epistemological issues through biological research. (shrink)