Natural Law and Universality in the Philosophy of Biology

European Review 22 (51) (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Several philosophers of biology have argued for the claim that the generalizations of biology are historical and contingent.1–5 This claim divides into the following sub-claims, each of which I will contest: first, biological generalizations are restricted to a particular space-time region. I argue that biological generalizations are universal with respect to space and time. Secondly, biological generalizations are restricted to specific kinds of entities, i.e. these generalizations do not quantify over an unrestricted domain. I will challenge this second claim by providing an interpretation of biological generalizations that do quantify over an unrestricted domain of objects. Thirdly, biological generalizations are contingent in the sense that their truth depends on special initial and background conditions. I will argue that the contingent character of biological generalizations does not diminish their explanatory power nor is it the case that this sort of contingency is exclusively characteristic of biological generalizations.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,202

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Sober and Elgin on laws of biology: A critique. [REVIEW]Lane DesAutels - 2010 - Biology and Philosophy 25 (2):249-256.
There may be strict empirical laws in biology, after all.Mehmet Elgin - 2006 - Biology and Philosophy 21 (1):119-134.
Real Patterns in Biological Explanation.Daniel C. Burnston - 2017 - Philosophy of Science 84 (5):879-891.
How is biological explanation possible?Alex Rosenberg - 2001 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (4):735-760.
Philosophy of Biology.Emanuele Serrelli - 2016 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Generalizations and kinds in natural science: the case of species.Thomas A. C. Reydon - 2006 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 37 (2):230-255.
Pragmatic laws.Sandra D. Mitchell - 1997 - Philosophy of Science 64 (4):479.
Regularities and causality; generalizations and causal explanations.Jim Bogen - 2005 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36 (2):397-420.
Ceteris Paribus Laws and Minutis Rectis Laws.Luke Fenton-Glynn - 2016 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 93 (2):274-305.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-12-06

Downloads
26 (#577,276)

6 months
5 (#544,079)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Alexander Reutlinger
Ludwig Maximilians Universität, München

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

How the laws of physics lie.Nancy Cartwright - 1983 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Explaining the brain: mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience.Carl F. Craver - 2007 - New York : Oxford University Press,: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.
The metaphysics within physics.Tim Maudlin - 2007 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Nature's capacities and their measurement.Nancy Cartwright - 1989 - New York: Oxford University Press.

View all 45 references / Add more references