Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Elliott Sober's distinction between selection-for and drift requires that drift explanations invoke population size as the primary explanatory variable.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Drift explanations can invoke effective population size, generation time, or allele frequency—multiple variables beyond just N that matter equally.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Population size is necessary but not sufficient; drift explanations require assumptions about mutation, mating systems, and demographic structure.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Sober's distinction may not require population size as *primary*; selection-for/drift differ in causal structure, not measurement emphasis.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Drift's defining feature is random sampling error, which scales mathematically with inverse population size, making it the essential variable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Sober's distinction aims to separate drift from selection mechanistically; population size directly instantiates the drift mechanism itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Explanations invoking drift without population size fail to specify what makes the process drift rather than deterministic selection.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42