Behavioral and Brain Sciences



Open Peer Commentary

The integrative framework for the behavioural sciences has already been discovered, and it is the adaptationist approach


Michael E. Price a1 , William M. Brown a1 and Oliver S. Curry a2
a1 Centre for Cognition and Neuroimaging, School of Social Sciences and Law, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, United Kingdom michael.price@brunel.ac.uk http://people.brunel.ac.uk/~hsstmep/ william.brown@brunel.ac.uk http://people.brunel.ac.uk/~hsstwmb/
a2 Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, London School of Economics, London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom. o.s.curry@lse.ac.uk http://www.lse.ac.uk/darwin

Article author query
price me   [PubMed][Google Scholar] 
brown wm   [PubMed][Google Scholar] 
curry os   [PubMed][Google Scholar] 

Abstract

The adaptationist framework is necessary and sufficient for unifying the social and natural sciences. Gintis's “beliefs, preferences, and constraints” (BPC) model compares unfavorably to this framework because it lacks criteria for determining special design, incorrectly assumes that standard evolutionary theory predicts individual rationality maximisation, does not adequately recognize the impact of psychological mechanisms on culture, and is mute on the behavioural implications of intragenomic conflict.

(Published Online April 27 2007)



Metrics