I.A. Kuzin - Post-graduate Student, Chair of Philosophy and Methodology of Science, Philosophy Faculty, Lomonosov Moscow State University. E-mail: ikuzin@gmail.com

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. That-s why biologization of the humanities and development of neurosciences and neurocomputing presupposes taking into account changes in evolutionary theory. Critique of adaptationism is an important part of the modern scientific critique of Darwinism. History of the critique of adaptationism is intertwined with history of sociobiology. This circumstance is embodied by the longstanding confrontation between evolutionary dissidents R.C. Lewontin an S.J. Gould on the one hand and sociobiologists E.O. Wilson and R. Dawkins on the other hand. Meanwhile Soviet Union had its own sociobiological project by V.P. Efroimson. This project was underdeveloped for political reasons. It-s merits were discussed mainly in the context of nature-nurture debate. Among Russian-speaking critique of adaptationism in sociobiology works of ethologist E.N. Panov are worth of special consideration.

 

1. Guld S.Dzh., Levontin R.CH. Pazukhi svoda sobora Svjatogo Marka i paradigma Panglossa: kritika adaptacio­nistskojj programmy // Filosofija. Nauka. Gumanitarnoeznanie. M.: Centrstrategicheskojjkonjunktury. 2014. S. 160-191.
2. Gould S.J., Lewontin R.C. The The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme // Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological sciences. 1979. V. 205 (1161). P. 581-598.
3. Evolution: the extended synthesis / Eds. Pigliucci M., Müller G.B. Cambridge : MIT press. 2010. 504 p.
4. Calabretta R., Parisi D. Evolutionary connectionism and mind/brain modularity / Eds. Callebaut W., Rasskin-Gutman D. Modularity understanding the development and evolution of natural complex systems. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. 2005. P. 309-330.
5. Kuzin I.A. Ujazvimye mesta ehvoljucionnojj psikhologii: silnaja gipoteza moduljarnosti i adaptacionizm // Nejjro­kompjutery: razrabotka, primenenie. 2015. № 4. S. 48-50.
6. Wilson E.O.Sociobiology: the new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1975. P. 4.
7. Wilson E.O. On human nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1978. 272 p.
8. Segerstråle U.C.O.Defenders of the truth: the battle for science in the sociobiology debate and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2000. 504 p.
9. KuzinI.A.«The spandrels?» Gulda i Levontina i kritika adaptacionizma // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Serija 7. Filosofija. 2015. № 3. S. 3-18.
10. Understanding scientific prose / Ed. Selzer J.Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 1993. 406 p.
11. Dokinz R. EHgoistichnyjj gen. M.: Corpus. 2013. 105 s.
12. Dokinz R. Rasshirennyjj fenotip: dlinnaja ruka gena. M.: Astrel: CORPUS. 2010. 512 s.
13. Sterelny K.Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the fittest. Cambridge: Icon Books. 2001. 156 p.
14. Driscoll C.Sociobiology // Ed. Zalta E.N. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/ win2013/entries/sociobiology/ (dataobrashhenija 12.02.2015).
15. Grehkhehm L.P. Estestvoznanie, filosofija i nauki o chelovecheskom  povedenii v Sovetskom Sojuze. M.: Politizdat. 1991. S. 221-246.
16. EHfroimson V.P. Rodoslovnaja altruizma // Novyjj mir. 1971. № 10. S. 193-213.
17. EHfroimson V.P. Genetika genialnosti. M.: Tajjdeks Ko. 2002. 353s.
18. Oleskin A.V. Biopolitika. Politicheskijj potencial sovremennojj biologii. Izd. 2-e. M.: Nauchnyjj mir. 2007. 508 s.
19. Karpinskaja R.S., Nikolskijj S.A. Sociobiologija. Kriticheskijj analiz. M.: Mysl. 1988. S. 31-32, 60, 90, 165.
20. Panov E.N. Povedenie zhivotnykh i ehtologicheskaja struktura populjacijj. Izd. 3-e. M.: Knizhnyjjdom «Librokom», 2012. S. 7, 303, 339.