عنوان مقاله [English]
There are two main approaches on evolutionary epistemology: analogical or Spencerian approach, literal or Darwinian approach. In the first approach, one attempts to argue that process of culture and science growth is analogue to main process of organisms growth in biology which based on natural selection; while in the second approach, one attempts to argue that not only growth and evolution of animals and humans physical body is product and result of natural selection, but also growth of their mind structures is result of natural selection. The main question of this essay is that if the Ruse's claim and his arguments in rejection of analogical approach are strong enough or not. Many thinkers support this approach, including Karl Popper, Kuhn Thomas, Stephen Toulmin, Campbell Donald and David Hull. Ruse believe that although there are analogies between growth of organisms and growth of human knowledge, but there are also significant disanalogies between them which makes analogy between this two fields are weaken, so analogical approach is not defensible by Ruse. We agree with the core of Ruse's claim, that is, the analogical approach in evolutionary epistemology is implausible, but we believe that his arguments in refuting some versions of this approach such as kuhn's version and Camdell's, are failed.