How is biological explanation possible?

British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (4):735-760 (2001)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

That biology provides explanations is not open to doubt. But how it does so must be a vexed question for those who deny that biology embodies laws or other generalizations with the sort of explanatory force that the philosophy of science recognizes. The most common response to this problem has involved redefining law so that those grammatically general statements which biologists invoke in explanations can be counted as laws. But this terminological innovation cannot identify the source of biology's explanatory power. I argue that because biological science is historical, the problem of biological explanation can be assimilated to the parallel problem in the philosophy of history, and that the problem was solved by Carl Hempel. All we need to do is recognize that the only laws that biology—in all its compartments from the molecular onward—has or needs are the laws of natural selection.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,122

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
189 (#99,239)

6 months
19 (#113,304)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Alex Rosenberg
Duke University

References found in this work

What is a Law of Nature?D. M. Armstrong - 1983 - New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Sydney Shoemaker.
Philosophy of Biology.Elliott Sober - 1993 - Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
What is a Law of Nature?David Armstrong - 1983 - Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

View all 27 references / Add more references