Two outbreaks of lawlessness in recent philosophy of biology

Philosophy of Science 64 (4):467 (1997)
John Beatty (1995) and Alexander Rosenberg (1994) have argued against the claim that there are laws in biology. Beatty's main reason is that evolution is a process full of contingency, but he also takes the existence of relative significance controversies in biology and the popularity of pluralistic approaches to a variety of evolutionary questions to be evidence for biology's lawlessness. Rosenberg's main argument appeals to the idea that biological properties supervene on large numbers of physical properties, but he also develops case studies of biological controversies to defend his thesis that biology is best understood as an instrumental discipline. The present paper assesses their arguments.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1086/392622
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 23,316
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Derek Turner (2011). Gould's Replay Revisited. Biology and Philosophy 26 (1):65-79.

View all 17 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

78 ( #61,120 of 1,926,181 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

14 ( #62,206 of 1,926,181 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.