Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-hgkh8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-27T01:44:09.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2007

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

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.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)