Advertisement

Acta Biotheoretica

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 141–149 | Cite as

How-possibly explanations in biology

  • David B. Resnik
Article

Abstract

Biologists in many different fields of research give how-possibly explanations of the phenomena they study. Although such explanations lack empirical support, and might be regarded by some as “unscientific,” they play an important heuristic role in biology by helping biologists develop theories and concepts and suggesting new areas of research. How-possibly explanations serve as a useful framework for conducting research in the absence of adequate empiri cal data, and they can even become how-actually explanations if they gain enough empirical support.

Keywords

Empirical Support Heuristic Role Important Heuristic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albers, B. (1987). Competence as the man factor determining the size of the neural plate. Development, Growth, and Differentiation 29: 535–545.Google Scholar
  2. Ayala, F. (1982). Population and Evolutionary Genetics. Menlo Park, California, Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar
  3. Brandon, R. N. (1990). Adaptation and the Environment. Princeton, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brody, B. (1972). Towards an Aristotelian theory of scientific explanation. Philosophy of Science 39: 20–31.Google Scholar
  5. Bynum, W. (1978). Louis Pasteur: In pursuit of the infinitely small. In: R. Porter, ed., Man Masters Nature. New York, George Braziller.Google Scholar
  6. Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species. London, John Murray.Google Scholar
  7. Dray, W. (1957). Laws and Explanation in History. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dray, W. (1964). Philosophy of History. Englewood Cliffs, NJ., Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Hempel, C. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York, The Free Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lennox, J. (1989). Darwinian thought experiments. a function for just-so stories?. International Conference on the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology, June 23, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. O'Hara, R. (1988). Homage to Clio, or, toward an historical philosophy for evolutionary biology. Systematic Zoology 37: 142–155.Google Scholar
  12. Papaioannou, V. (1988). Investigation of the tissue specificity of the lethal yellow (Ay) gene in mouse embryos. Developmental Genetics 9: 155–165.Google Scholar
  13. Resnik, D. (1989). Adaptationist explanations. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 20: 193–213.Google Scholar
  14. Ruben, J. and A. Bennett, (1987). The evolution of bone. Evolution 41: 1187–1197.Google Scholar
  15. Salmon, W. (1984). Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Thagard, P. (1978). The best explanation: criteria for theory choice. Journal of Philosophy 75: 76–92.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • David B. Resnik
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of WyomingLaramieU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations