Philosophy of Science 64 (4):467 (1997)
|Abstract||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)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Gregory J. Morgan (2010). Laws of Biological Design: A Reply to John Beatty. Biology and Philosophy 25 (3):379-389.
Alexander Rosenberg (1985). The Structure of Biological Science. Cambridge University Press.
Ron Amundson (1998). Typology Reconsidered: Two Doctrines on the History of Evolutionary Biology. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 13 (2):153-177.
Lindell Bromham (2011). Wandering Drunks and General Lawlessness in Biology: Does Diversity and Complexity Tend to Increase in Evolutionary Systems? Biology and Philosophy 26 (6):915-933.
Alexander Rosenberg (1994). Instrumental Biology, or, the Disunity of Science. University of Chicago Press.
Marc Lange (2004). The Autonomy of Functional Biology: A Reply to Rosenberg. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 19 (1):93-109.
Mehmet Elgin (2006). There May Be Strict Empirical Laws in Biology, After All. Biology and Philosophy 21 (1):119-134.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads40 ( #33,703 of 722,826 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #20,383 of 722,826 )
How can I increase my downloads?