Acta Biotheoretica 32 (3) (1983)
|Abstract||Several important analyses of the structure of evolutionary explanation have explicitly or implicitly required that historical laws be among the explanans statements. The required historical laws take the form of a generalization which relates some property or event to a developmental sequence of properties or events. The thesis of this paper is that historical laws of this kind are precluded by modern biological theory and, hence, analysis of evolutionary explanation within modern biology that require such laws are defective.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
James W. McAllister (1997). Laws of Nature, Natural History, and the Description of the World. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 11 (3):245 – 258.
Lee Mcintyre (1997). Gould on Laws in Biological Science. Biology and Philosophy 12 (3).
Mehmet Elgin (2003). Biology and a Priori Laws. Philosophy of Science 70 (5):1380--1389.
Andrew Hamilton (2007). Laws of Biology, Laws of Nature: Problems and (Dis)Solutions. Philosophy Compass 2 (3):592–610.
Laird Addis (1968). Historicism and Historical Laws of Development. Inquiry 11 (1-4):155 – 174.
Stanley Paluch (1968). The Covering Law Model of Historical Explanation. Inquiry 11 (1-4):368 – 387.
Jon Miller (2003). Spinoza and the Concept of a Law of Nature. History of Philosophy Quarterly 20 (3):257 - 276.
Mehmet Elgin (2006). There May Be Strict Empirical Laws in Biology, After All. Biology and Philosophy 21 (1):119-134.
Leon J. Goldstein (1962). Evidence and Events in History. Philosophy of Science 29 (2):175-194.
Alex Rosenberg (2001). How is Biological Explanation Possible? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (4):735-760.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #100,866 of 556,920 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,931 of 556,920 )
How can I increase my downloads?