In his essay “Three Kinds of Adaptationism” Peter Godfrey-Smith argues that the debate surrounding adaptationism actually consists of three distinct and logically independent debates. In this paper I will consider the three adaptationist positions which Godfrey-Smith sees are at stake in such debates as well as his argument for their logical independence of one another. I will then argue that Godfrey-Smith’s argument is based in premises which are not accepted by all parties in such debates and thus serves to confuse rather than clarify the issues at hand. I will then attempt to salvage a modified form of Godfrey-Smith’s argument so as to make it acceptable to all sides of the adaptationism debate and thereby achieve his goal of “classification and clarification.” (Godfrey-Smith, 1) (more…)
