For an analogy, consider the fact that mathematicians also find it useful to distinguish between “squares” and “rectangles”—but they nevertheless correctly insist that all squares are in fact rectangles.
The problem here isn’t that “sexual selection” isn’t a useful concept on its own; the problem is the failure to appreciate how abstract the concept of “natural selection” is.
I have a similar feeling, ultimately, about the opposition between “natural selection” and “artificial selection”, even though that contrast is perhaps more pedagogically useful.
The problem here isn’t that “sexual selection” isn’t a useful concept on its own; the problem is the failure to appreciate how abstract the concept of “natural selection” is.
I think there’s a substantive dispute here, not merely semantics. The original complaint was that Natural Selection was an unconstrained theory; the point of my comment was that in specific cases, the actual operating selective mechanisms obey specific constraints. The more abstract a concept is (in OO terms, the higher in the class hierarchy), the less constraints it obeys. Saying that natural selection is an abstract concept that encompasses a variety of specific mechanisms is all well and good, but you can’t instantiate an abstract class.
I wish I could upvote this comment twice.
Why? I didn’t really feel like trying to win over Michael Vassar, but since you feel so strongly about it, I should point out that biologists do find it useful to distinguish between “ecological selection” and “sexual selection”.
For an analogy, consider the fact that mathematicians also find it useful to distinguish between “squares” and “rectangles”—but they nevertheless correctly insist that all squares are in fact rectangles.
The problem here isn’t that “sexual selection” isn’t a useful concept on its own; the problem is the failure to appreciate how abstract the concept of “natural selection” is.
I have a similar feeling, ultimately, about the opposition between “natural selection” and “artificial selection”, even though that contrast is perhaps more pedagogically useful.
I think there’s a substantive dispute here, not merely semantics. The original complaint was that Natural Selection was an unconstrained theory; the point of my comment was that in specific cases, the actual operating selective mechanisms obey specific constraints. The more abstract a concept is (in OO terms, the higher in the class hierarchy), the less constraints it obeys. Saying that natural selection is an abstract concept that encompasses a variety of specific mechanisms is all well and good, but you can’t instantiate an abstract class.