Evolution and Knowledge

According to evolutionary epistemology, our ability to understand the world is neither coincidence nor divine providence, but can be explained naturally. Thinking and perception are achievements of the human brain. Our cognitive structures fit our world because they have evolved in adaptation to it. This fit is not ideal, but it is sufficient for survival in a competitive environment. (Gerhard Vollmer, translation by DeepL) ¹

Evolution

After Wallace and Darwin developed an early version of the evolutionary theory in the 19th century, it was vigorously opposed by religious circles. Although the theory of evolution has proven to be extremely fruitful in retrospect, it is still rejected by some today - no longer only by religious circles², but in other forms even by groups that consider themselves progressive³. This criticism comes from spiritualist, constructivist, radical skeptic, or dogmatic approaches and is directed against the natural origin of life or the evolutionary heritage of our existence.

Genesis of cognitive ability

The theory of evolution also proved relevant to the question of whether we can know the world. Donald Campbell coined the term evolutionary epistemology⁴ for the discipline that emerged from this. Konrad Lorenz and Gerhard Vollmer made significant contributions to this new field, which combines philosophical and scientific aspects.⁵

Main theses of evolutionary epistemology

• The sensory organs, the brain, and the ability to speak have evolved through biological variation and selection. An important example of this is the evolution of the eyes.⁶
• This process of adaptation led to improved orientation in the environment. Only organisms whose perception and cognition were sufficiently realistic were able to survive and reproduce.
• The adaptation of cognitive abilities was directed toward medium dimensions and not toward the microcosm or macrocosm.
• The sensory organs and the brain, which developed through evolution, are the factual biological prerequisites for human cognitive abilities.
• Although the cultural evolution that built on this is no longer closely related to biological evolution, this realization did not come about suddenly, but rather through different stages of development. These can be roughly characterized as unconscious perception, pre-scientific conscious experience, and finally theoretical-critical scientific knowledge.
• Biological evolution is only constitutive for the first two stages. The course of cultural evolution, on the other hand, is not biologically determined, but depends on evolutionarily developed cognitive abilities.
• However, there are similarities between biological evolution and scientific development. Theories change - albeit not purely by chance - and useless theories are discarded or replaced by improved models.
• Evolutionary epistemology advocates hypothetical realism, i.e., it assumes the existence of atoms, water, earth, living beings, planets, suns, galaxies, etc.
• This realism is hypothetical because, like anti-realism, it cannot be ultimately justified. However, it has explanatory power because, among other things, it explains why humans are able to communicate with each other at all, why theories can fail, why independent measurement methods for natural constants converge on the same values, and why there cannot be arbitrary events that are incompatible with the laws of nature⁷.
• Evolutionary epistemology shares with critical rationalism the view that knowledge is fallible. However, by eliminating errors, it is possible to develop increasingly better theories about reality.

Criticism

Like the theory of evolution itself, evolutionary epistemology was also strongly criticized shortly after its emergence⁸. However, the most comprehensive overview of the criticism of this epistemological theory can be found in Gerhard Vollmer’s own work.⁹ There, he reconstructs, discusses, and refutes over three dozen objections. This is just consequent, since according to critical rationalism, hypotheses must stand up to criticism.

Corroboration

Some points of criticism are mentioned below:

• Epistemology is impossible: This has never been proven. What does not (yet) exist is apodictically true knowledge about the world.
• Usefulness does not guarantee truth: But this is not claimed. However, false knowledge is usually not helpful for survival. The monkey that had no realistic perception of the branch it was jumping for was soon a dead monkey - and therefore does not belong to our ancestors.
• The problem of validity is not solved: All other epistemological theories have also failed to provide a method for obtaining absolutely true synthetic statements about the world.
• Epistemology is reduced to biology: Only cognitive abilities are of biological origin. Although the emergence and development of science is based on these abilities, it is no longer a purely biological process, but rather follows a general evolutionary principle.
• Epistemology must not depend circularly on empiricism: However, this is not a vicious circle of reasoning, but rather a self-correcting feedback structure. Dependence on experience makes it possible for falsehoods to be disproved by reality.
• According to Kant, reason dictates the laws the nature: Kant’s necessary principles of thought correspond to the principles of Newtonian physics. However, the latter have not proven to be universally valid and are merely good approximations for average conditions.¹⁰
• Appearance and thing-in-itself: Kant defines the “thing-in-itself,” i.e., reality, as unknowable and thus claims to be able to solve certain philosophical problems. These include, among other things, the avoidance of external world skepticism and the question of absolute human free will in the face of deterministic chains of causation in nature.¹¹ However, these problems could not be solved in this way either. ¹² Incidentally, scientific knowledge did not prove to be limited to appearances, because the extraordinarily well-proven quantum mechanics is inaccessible to direct sensory observation.
• Radical constructivism is more modest: Its modesty lies in the fact that everything is a construct. The concept of the search for truth is abandoned and replaced by “viability,” which means “being suitable, useful, or appropriate.” Even fellow human beings are nothing more than mental constructs. The problem with radical constructivism is that it contradicts itself when it wants to be objective, and it abolishes itself when it only wants to be viable. In everyday life, it proves useless, because we usually assume that our fellow human beings actually exist.
• Hypothetical realism is inconsistent: The statement “All sentences are hypothetical” is false, since there are provable mathematical statements. However, that is not what is meant. Rather, the statement is “All synthetic statements about the world are hypothetical.” This could prove to be false if apodictically true statements could be made, but this has never been achieved.

Conclusion

Evolutionary epistemology combines biological foundations with philosophical questions of knowledge and thus provides a plausible model for the emergence and development of our cognitive abilities. It can explain why our structures of perception and thought are largely reality-based, but always fallible. In doing so, it avoids dogmatic claims to certainty without falling into arbitrariness or skepticism. Ultimately, evolutionary epistemology makes it clear that our pursuit of knowledge is a dynamic process that is constantly evolving and adapting - much like the organisms from which it emerged.