Biology and Philosophy

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 93–109 | Cite as

The autonomy of functional biology: a reply to Rosenberg

  • Marc Lange

Abstract

Rosenberg has recently argued that explanations supplied by (what he calls) “functional biology” are mere promissory notes for macromolecular adaptive explanations. Rosenberg's arguments currently constitute one of the most substantial challenges to the autonomy, irreducibility, and indispensability of the explanations supplied by functional biology. My responses to Rosenberg's arguments will generate a novel account of the autonomy of functional biology. This account will turn on the relations between counterfactuals, scientific explanations, and natural laws. Crucially, in their treatment of the laws' relation to counterfactuals, Rosenberg's arguments beg the question against the autonomy of functional biology. This relation is considerably more subtle than is suggested by familiar slogans such as “Laws support counterfactuals; accidents don't.”

Explanation Laws Function Autonomy Reductionism Counterfactual 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Garfinkel A. 1981. Forms of Explanation. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  2. Jackson F. and Pettit P. 1992. 'In defense of explanatory ecumenism'. Economics and Philosophy 8: 1–21.Google Scholar
  3. Lange M. 2000. Natural Laws in Scientific Practice. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  4. MacArthur R. 1972. Geographic Ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  5. Mill J.S. 1961. A System of Logic. Longmans Green, London.Google Scholar
  6. Putnam H. 1975. 'Philosophy and our mental life'. In: Putnam H., Philosophical Papers, Volume 2: Mind, Language, and Reality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 292–303.Google Scholar
  7. Putnam H. 1999. The Threefold Cord. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  8. Rosenberg A. 2001a. 'Reductionism in a historical science'. Philosophy of Science 68: 135–163.Google Scholar
  9. Rosenberg A. 2001b. 'How is biological explanation possible?'. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52: 735–760.Google Scholar
  10. Rosenberg A. 2001c. 'On multiple realization and the special sciences'. Journal of Philosophy 98: 365–373.Google Scholar
  11. Sober E. 1984. The Nature of Selection. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  12. Sober E. 1993. Philosophy of Biology. Westview, Boulder.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc Lange
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations