What Would Natural Laws in the Life Sciences Be?
Much research in the life sciences arrives at generalizations concerning the biological properties characteristic of particular species, or generalizations concerning groups of species or even generalizations concerning broader biological classes. How should we understand these generalizations? In this chapter, I will examine whether the concept of a law of nature can help us to understand them. I will examine several controversies about the applicability of the concept of a natural law to the life sciences, including whether biological generalizations have exceptions, are riddled with ceteris-paribus provisos, or are too historically contingent to qualify as distinctively biological laws. I will not aim to argue that there are in fact biological laws, but rather to understand what would make it the case that there are (or are not). Implications for science education are discussed.
KeywordsIsland Biogeography Logical Necessity Homeostatic Property Cluster Continuity Principle Cartilaginous Ring
- Beatty, J. 1981. What is wrong with the received view of evolutionary theory? In PSA 1980, vol. 2, ed. P.D. Asquith and R.N. Giere, 397–426. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
- Beatty, J. 1995. The evolutionary contingency thesis. In Theories and rationality in the biological sciences, ed. G. Wolters and J. Lennox, 45–81. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
- Boyd, R. 2007. Homeostasis, species, and natural taxa. In Philosophy of science: An anthology, ed. Marc Lange, 406–426. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Breyer, S.J. 2012. Opinion of the Court: Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1150.pdf.
- Brown, J.H., and M.V. Lomolino. 1998. Biogeography, 2nd ed. Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
- Futuyma, D. 1979. Evolutionary biology. Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
- Giere, R. 1995. The skeptical perspective: Science without laws of nature. In Laws of nature, ed. F. Weinert, 120–138. Berlin: deGruyter.Google Scholar
- Goodman, N. 1983. Fact, fiction and forecast, 4th ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Gould, S.J. 1989. Wonderful life. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
- Hempel, C.G. 1966. Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Hooper, E.T. 1957. Dental patterns in mice of the genus Peromyscus. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Miscellaneous Publications No. 99.Google Scholar
- Kingsland, S. 1985. Modeling nature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- MacArthur, R. 1972. Geographic ecology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Mill, J.S. 1961. A system of logic. London: Longmans Green.Google Scholar
- Quine, W.V.O. 1960. Word and object. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Schaffner, K. 1993. Discovery and explanation in biology and medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Schaffner, K. 1995. Comments on Beatty. In Theories and rationality in the biological sciences, ed. G. Wolters and J. Lennox, 99–106. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
- Starling, E.H. 1918. Linacre lecture on law of the heart. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.Google Scholar
- Steenstrup, J.J.Sm. 1845. On the alternation of generations. London: Ray Society.Google Scholar