↓ Skip to main content

The early history of chance in evolution

Overview of attention for article published in Studies in History & Philosophy of Science Part A, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The early history of chance in evolution
Published in
Studies in History & Philosophy of Science Part A, April 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.shpsa.2014.09.006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles H. Pence

Abstract

Work throughout the history and philosophy of biology frequently employs 'chance', 'unpredictability', 'probability', and many similar terms. One common way of understanding how these concepts were introduced in evolution focuses on two central issues: the first use of statistical methods in evolution (Galton), and the first use of the concept of "objective chance" in evolution (Wright). I argue that while this approach has merit, it fails to fully capture interesting philosophical reflections on the role of chance expounded by two of Galton's students, Karl Pearson and W.F.R. Weldon. Considering a question more familiar from contemporary philosophy of biology--the relationship between our statistical theories of evolution and the processes in the world those theories describe--is, I claim, a more fruitful way to approach both these two historical actors and the broader development of chance in evolution.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 10%
Unknown 19 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 19%
Professor 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Other 6 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 24%
Philosophy 3 14%
Computer Science 2 10%
Social Sciences 2 10%
Environmental Science 2 10%
Other 7 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 February 2018.
All research outputs
#2,868,400
of 11,842,921 outputs
Outputs from Studies in History & Philosophy of Science Part A
#71
of 326 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,074
of 211,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Studies in History & Philosophy of Science Part A
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,842,921 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 326 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 211,832 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them