Biology & Philosophy

, 24:183 | Cite as

Optimality modeling in a suboptimal world

  • Angela Potochnik


The fate of optimality modeling is typically linked to that of adaptationism: the two are thought to stand or fall together (Gould and Lewontin, Proc Relig Soc Lond 205:581–598, 1979; Orzack and Sober, Am Nat 143(3):361–380, 1994). I argue here that this is mistaken. The debate over adaptationism has tended to focus on one particular use of optimality models, which I refer to here as their strong use. The strong use of an optimality model involves the claim that selection is the only important influence on the evolutionary outcome in question and is thus linked to adaptationism. However, biologists seldom intend this strong use of optimality models. One common alternative that I term the weak use simply involves the claim that an optimality model accurately represents the role of selection in bringing about the outcome. This and other weaker uses of optimality models insulate the optimality approach from criticisms of adaptationism, and they account for the prominence of optimality modeling (broadly construed) in population biology. The centrality of these uses of optimality models ensures a continuing role for the optimality approach, regardless of the fate of adaptationism.


Adaptationism Behavioral ecology Evolution Natural selection Optimality modeling Population biology 



This paper has benefitted from the insights of Elliott Sober, Joan Roughgarden and the members of her lab, Peter Godfrey-Smith, Patrick Forber, and two anonymous referees for Biology and Philosophy.


  1. Brandon RN, Rausher MD (1996) Testing adaptationism: a comment on Orzack and Sober. Am Nat 148(1):189–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Godfrey-Smith P (2001) Three kinds of adaptationism. In: Orzack SH, Sober E (eds) Adaptationism and optimality, Cambridge studies in philosophy and biology, chap 11. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 335–357Google Scholar
  3. Gould SJ, Lewontin R (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc Relig Soc Lond 205:581–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hamilton W (1967) Extraordinary sex ratios. Science 156:477–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hofbauer J, Sigmund K (1998) Evolutionary games and replicator dynamics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Lewens T (2008) Seven types of adaptationism. Biol Philos. doi: 10.1007/s10539-008-9145-7 Google Scholar
  7. Lloyd EA (1988) The structure and confirmation of evolutionary theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  8. Maynard Smith J (1982) Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Maynard Smith J, Burian R, Kauffman S, Alberch P, Campbell J, Goodwin B, Lande R, Raup D, Wolpert L (1985) Developmental constraints and evolution. Q Rev Biol 60(3):265–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Orzack SH (1986) Sex-ratio control in a parasitic wasp, Nasonia vitripennis. II. Experimental analysis of an optimal sex-ratio model. Evolution 40(2):341–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Orzack SH, Sober E (1994) Optimality models and the test of adaptationism. Am Nat 143(3):361–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Orzack SH, Sober E (1996) How to formulate and test adaptationism. Am Nat 148(1):202–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Parker G (1970) The reproductive behavior and the nature of sexual selection in Scatophaga stercoraria L. (Diptera: Scatophagidae): II. The fertilization rate and the spatial and temporal relationships of each sex around the site of mating and oviposition. J Anim Ecol 39(1):205–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Reznick D, Travis J (1996) The empirical study of adaptation in natural populations, chap 8. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 243–289Google Scholar
  15. Seger J, Stubblefield JW (1996) Optimization and adaptation. In: Rose M, Lauder G (eds) Adaptation, chap 3. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 93–123Google Scholar
  16. Werren J (1980) Sex ratio adaptations to local mate competition in a parasitic wasp. Science 208:1157–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, 308 Hanner HallOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Personalised recommendations