Does biology have laws? The experimental evidence

Philosophy of Science 64 (4):457 (1997)
Abstract
In this paper I argue that we can best make sense of the practice of experimental evolutionary biology if we see it as investigating contingent, rather than lawlike, regularities. This understanding is contrasted with the experimental practice of certain areas of physics. However, this presents a problem for those who accept the Logical Positivist conception of law and its essential role in scientific explanation. I address this problem by arguing that the contingent regularities of evolutionary biology have a limited range of nomic necessity and a limited range of explanatory power even though they lack the unlimited projectibility that has been seen by some as a hallmark of scientific laws.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1086/392621
Options
 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
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 27,208
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Gould's Replay Revisited.Derek Turner - 2011 - Biology and Philosophy 26 (1):65-79.
Laws of Biological Design: A Reply to John Beatty.Gregory J. Morgan - 2010 - Biology and Philosophy 25 (3):379-389.
Laws of Nature and Natural Laws.Daryn Lehoux - 2006 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 37 (4):527-549.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

385 ( #6,620 of 2,164,295 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

6 ( #50,899 of 2,164,295 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums