Advertisement

Biology and Philosophy

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 5–36 | Cite as

Causal Regularities in the Biological World of Contingent Distributions

  • C. Kenneth Waters
Article

Abstract

Former discussions of biological generalizations have focused on the question of whether there are universal laws’ of biology. These discussions typically analyzed generalizations out of their investigative and explanatory contexts and concluded that whatever biological generalizations are, they are not universal laws. The aim of this paper is to explain what biological generalizations are by shifting attention towards the contexts in which they are drawn. I argue that within the context of any particular biological explanation or investigation, biologists employ two types of generations. One type identifies causal regularities exhibited by particular kinds of biological entities. The other type identifies how these entities are distributed in the biological world.

causal contingent distribution essentialism explanation generalization kind law regularity ultimate and proximate explanation universal 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beatty, J.: 1981, ‘What's Wrong with the Received View of Evolutionary Theory?', in P.D. Asquith and R.N. Giere (eds.), Vol. 2 of PSA 1980, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, Michigan, pp. 397–426.Google Scholar
  2. Beatty, J.: 1995, ‘The Evolutionary Contingency Thesis', in G. Wolters, J. Lennox (eds.), Theories and Rationality in the Biological Sciences, The Second Annual Pittsburph/Konstanz Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 45–81.Google Scholar
  3. Brandon, R.N.: 1990, Adaptation and Environment, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  4. Buratowski, S.: 1993, ‘DNA Repair and Transcription: The Helicase Connection', Science 260, 37–38.Google Scholar
  5. Cartwright, N.: 1983, ‘The Reality of Causes in a World of Instrumental Laws', in How the Laws of Physics Lie, Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 54–73.Google Scholar
  6. Darden, L.: 1991, Theory Change in Science: Strategies from Mendelian Genetics, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Davidson, D.: 1963, ‘Actions, Reasons, and Causes', in Essays on Actions and Events, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980.Google Scholar
  8. Devitt, M. and Sterelny, K.: 1987, Language and Reality, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  9. Dupré, J.: 1981, ‘Natural Kinds and Biological Taxa', Philosophical Review 90, 66–90.Google Scholar
  10. Dupré, J.: 1993, The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  11. Ereshefsky, M.: 1991, ‘The Semantic Approach to Evolutionary Theory', Biology and Philosophy 6, 59–80.Google Scholar
  12. Ereshefsky, M.: 1992, ‘The Historical Nature of Evolutionary Theory', in M. Nitecki and D. Nitecki (eds.), History and Evolution, SUNY Press, Albany, NY, pp. 81–99.Google Scholar
  13. Giere, R.N.: 1988, Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  14. Ghiselin, M.T.: 1974, ‘A Radical Solution to the Species Problem', Systematic Zoology 23, 536–544.Google Scholar
  15. Hempel, C.G.: 1965, Aspects of Scientific Explanation, The Free Press, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Hempel, C.G.: 1966, Philosophy of Natural Science, Prentice-Hall, Inc, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  17. Hodge, J.: 1993. ‘Flexes, Doses, and Poisons: Molecular Perspectives on Dominance', Trends in Genetics 9, 1–2.Google Scholar
  18. Hull, D.L.: 1974, Philosophy of Biological Sciences, Prentice-Hall, Inc, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  19. Hull, D.L.: 1976, ‘Are Species Really Individuals?', Systematic Zoology 25, 174–191.Google Scholar
  20. Hull, D.L.: 1989, The Metaphysics of Evolution, SUNY Press, Albany, NY.Google Scholar
  21. Kitcher, P.: 1984a, ‘1953 and All That. A Tale of Two Sciences', The Philosophical Review 43, 335–371.Google Scholar
  22. Kitcher, P.S.: 1984b, ‘Species', Philosophy of Science 51, 308–333.Google Scholar
  23. Lloyd, E.A.: 1988, The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.Google Scholar
  24. Nagel, E.: 1961, The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Mayr, E.: 1961, ‘Cause and Effect in Biology', Science 134, 1501–1506.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Morgan, T. H.: 1926, The Theory of the Gene, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  27. Rosenberg, A.: 1985, The Structure of Biological Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  28. Ruse, M.: 1973, The Philosophy of Biology, Hutchinson University Library, London.Google Scholar
  29. Schaeffner, L. et al.: 1993, ‘DNA Repair Helicase: A Component of BTF2 (TFIEH) Basic Transcription Factor', Science 260, 58–63.Google Scholar
  30. Schaffner, K.: 1993, Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  31. Schaffner, K.: 1995, ‘Comments on Beatty', in G. Wolters and J. Lennox (eds.), Theories, and Rationality in the Biological Sciences, The Second Annual Pittsburgh/Konstanz Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 99–106.Google Scholar
  32. Selby, C.P. and Sancar, A.: 1993, ‘Molecular Mechanism of Transcription-Repair Coupling', Science 260, 53–58.Google Scholar
  33. Smart, J.J.C.: 1963, Philosophy and Scientific Realism, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  34. Sober, E.: 1984a, The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  35. Sober, E.: 1984b, ‘Discussion: Sets, Species, and Evolution: Comments on Philip Kitcher's “Species”', Philosophy of Science 51, 334–341.Google Scholar
  36. Sober, E.: 1989, ‘Is the Theory of Natural Selection Unprincipled? A Reply to Shimony', Biology and Philosophy 4, 275–280.Google Scholar
  37. Stalnaker, R.: 1984, Inquiry, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  38. Thompson, R.P.: 1988, The Structure of Biological Theories, SUNY Press, Albany.Google Scholar
  39. van Fraassen, B.: 1989, Laws and Symmetry, Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  40. Waters, C.K.: 1989, ‘The Universal Laws of Biology', Meeting of the Eastern Division of the APA (December 1989), abstract in Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 63, 74.Google Scholar
  41. Waters, C.K.: 1994, ‘Genes Made Molecular’, Philosophy of Science 61, 163–185.Google Scholar
  42. Watson, J.D. et al.: 1987, Molecular Biology of the Gene, The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc, Menlo Park, CA.Google Scholar
  43. Wilson, J.A.: 1972, Principles of Animal Physiology, MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Kenneth Waters
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science, 309 Ford HallUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisU.S.A

Personalised recommendations