Does biology have laws? The experimental evidence

Philosophy of Science 64 (4):457 (1997)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,846

External links

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

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
447 (#43,640)

6 months
12 (#213,237)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Robert Brandon
Duke University

Citations of this work

Pragmatic laws.Sandra D. Mitchell - 1997 - Philosophy of Science 64 (4):479.
Can mechanisms really replace laws of nature?Bert Leuridan - 2010 - Philosophy of Science 77 (3):317-340.
Why experiments matter.Arnon Levy & Adrian Currie - 2019 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 62 (9-10):1066-1090.

View all 41 citations / Add more citations