Philosophy of Science 64 (4):457 (1997)
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)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Laws of Biology, Laws of Nature: Problems and (Dis)Solutions.Andrew Hamilton - 2007 - Philosophy Compass 2 (3):592–610.
Laws of Biological Design: A Reply to John Beatty.Gregory J. Morgan - 2010 - Biology and Philosophy 25 (3):379-389.
Who Got What Wrong? Fodor and Piattelli on Darwin: Guiding Principles and Explanatory Models in Natural Selection. [REVIEW]José Díez & Pablo Lorenzano - 2013 - Erkenntnis 78 (5):1143-1175.
Laws of Nature and Natural Laws.Daryn Lehoux - 2006 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 37 (4):527-549.
Similar books and articles
Wandering Drunks and General Lawlessness in Biology: Does Diversity and Complexity Tend to Increase in Evolutionary Systems?Lindell Bromham - 2011 - Biology and Philosophy 26 (6):915-933.
Psychological and Evolutionary Evidence for Altruism.Alejandro Rosas - 2002 - Biology and Philosophy 17 (1):93-107.
Heuristics and Biases in Evolutionary Biology.David Magnus - 1996 - Biology and Philosophy 12 (1):21-38.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads385 ( #6,620 of 2,164,295 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #50,899 of 2,164,295 )
How can I increase my downloads?