Philosophy of Science 70 (5):1380--1389 (2003)
|Abstract||In this paper, I investigate the nature of a priori biological laws in connection with the idea that laws must be empirical. I argue that the epistemic functions of a priori biological laws in biology are the same as those of empirical laws in physics. Thus, the requirement that laws be empirical is idle in connection with how laws operate in science. This result presents a choice between sticking with an unmotivated philosophical requirement and taking the functional equivalence of laws seriously and modifying our philosophical account. I favor the latter.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jani Raerinne (2011). Allometries and Scaling Laws Interpreted as Laws: A Reply to Elgin. Biology and Philosophy 26 (1):99-111.
Lee Mcintyre (1997). Gould on Laws in Biological Science. Biology and Philosophy 12 (3).
Andrew Hamilton (2007). Laws of Biology, Laws of Nature: Problems and (Dis)Solutions. Philosophy Compass 2 (3):592–610.
Alice Drewery (2005). Essentialism and the Necessity of the Laws of Nature. Synthese 144 (3):381-396.
Joel Press (2009). Physical Explanations and Biological Explanations, Empirical Laws and a Priori Laws. Biology and Philosophy 24 (3):359-374.
Lane DesAutels (2010). Sober and Elgin on Laws of Biology: A Critique. Biology and Philosophy 25 (2):249-256.
Mehmet Elgin (2006). There May Be Strict Empirical Laws in Biology, After All. Biology and Philosophy 21 (1):119-134.
Mehmet Elgin (2003). Biology and A Priori Laws. Philosophy of Science 70 (5):1380-1389.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads37 ( #31,927 of 549,084 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,084 )
How can I increase my downloads?