Is there an elephant in the room? Addressing rival approaches to the interpretation of growth perturbations and small size Export

@article{citeulike:1580760, abstract = {Two interpretations of growth perturbation and small size are commonly applied in human biology: an adaptationist approach in which small size is considered to be an a relatively beneficial adjustment to environmental stressors, and a biomedical approach in which small size is considered nonadaptive, a sign of dysfunction or pathology. These two interpretations conflict, but are used without acknowledging or addressing the conflict. This article reviews the strengths and weaknesses of the two. This exercise does not prove the indisputable superiority of either approach. Considerations of epistemology show that biologists will never be faced with a decisive test of either, much as they might like such clear cut evidence. Nevertheless, it is possible that a gradual decrease in the productivity of one approach will become a sufficient reason to abandon it. Alternatively, if specific areas of application can be distinguished, each approach might continue to be productive in its own domain. Am. J. Hum. Biol., 2007. {\copyright} 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.}, address = {Department of Anthropology, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, New York 12222; Department of Philosophy, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, New York 12222}, author = {Schell, Lawrence M. and Magnus, P. D.}, citeulike-article-id = {1580760}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.20669}, citeulike-linkout-1 = {http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/114293377/ABSTRACT}, doi = {10.1002/ajhb.20669}, journal = {American Journal of Human Biology}, keywords = {epidemiology, evol-methods, evolution, height, measurements, read, trait}, number = {5}, pages = {606--614}, posted-at = {2008-11-09 22:09:50}, priority = {2}, title = {Is there an elephant in the room? Addressing rival approaches to the interpretation of growth perturbations and small size}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.20669}, volume = {19}, year = {2007} }

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:1580760 L3 - citeulike-article-id:1580760 N2 - Two interpretations of growth perturbation and small size are commonly applied in human biology: an adaptationist approach in which small size is considered to be an a relatively beneficial adjustment to environmental stressors, and a biomedical approach in which small size is considered nonadaptive, a sign of dysfunction or pathology. These two interpretations conflict, but are used without acknowledging or addressing the conflict. This article reviews the strengths and weaknesses of the two. This exercise does not prove the indisputable superiority of either approach. Considerations of epistemology show that biologists will never be faced with a decisive test of either, much as they might like such clear cut evidence. Nevertheless, it is possible that a gradual decrease in the productivity of one approach will become a sufficient reason to abandon it. Alternatively, if specific areas of application can be distinguished, each approach might continue to be productive in its own domain. Am. J. Hum. Biol., 2007. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc. IS - 5 JF - American Journal of Human Biology AD - Department of Anthropology, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, New York 12222; Department of Philosophy, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, New York 12222 EP - 614 TI - Is there an elephant in the room? Addressing rival approaches to the interpretation of growth perturbations and small size VL - 19 SP - 606 KW - epidemiology KW - evol-methods KW - evolution KW - height KW - measurements KW - read KW - trait AU - Schell, Lawrence AU - Magnus, PD PY - 2007/// UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.20669 ER -