What Would Natural Laws in the Life Sciences Be?

Chapter
Part of the History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences book series (HPTL, volume 1)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Island Biogeography Logical Necessity Homeostatic Property Cluster Continuity Principle Cartilaginous Ring 
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.

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Boyd, R. 2007. Homeostasis, species, and natural taxa. In Philosophy of science: An anthology, ed. Marc Lange, 406–426. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Brandon, R. 1997. Does biology have laws? The experimental evidence. Philosophy of Science 64(Proc.): S444–S457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breyer, S.J. 2012. Opinion of the Court: Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1150.pdf.
  6. Brown, J.H., and M.V. Lomolino. 1998. Biogeography, 2nd ed. Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  7. Futuyma, D. 1979. Evolutionary biology. Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  8. Giere, R. 1995. The skeptical perspective: Science without laws of nature. In Laws of nature, ed. F. Weinert, 120–138. Berlin: deGruyter.Google Scholar
  9. Goodman, N. 1947. The problem of counterfactual conditionals. Journal of Philosophy 44: 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodman, N. 1983. Fact, fiction and forecast, 4th ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gould, S.J. 1989. Wonderful life. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  12. Hempel, C.G. 1966. Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Hibbard, C.W. 1963. The origin of the P3 pattern of Sylvilagus, Caprolagus, and Lepus. Journal of Mammalogy 44: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hitchcock, C., and J. Woodward. 2003. Explanatory generalizations, part II: Plumbing explanatory depth. Nous 37: 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hooper, E.T. 1957. Dental patterns in mice of the genus Peromyscus. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Miscellaneous Publications No. 99.Google Scholar
  16. Hutchinson, G.E. 1957. Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 22: 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kingsland, S. 1985. Modeling nature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lange, M. 2009. Laws and lawmakers. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. MacArthur, R. 1972. Geographic ecology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Mill, J.S. 1961. A system of logic. London: Longmans Green.Google Scholar
  21. Putnam, H. 1975. Philosophy and our mental life. In Mind, language, and reality: Philosophical papers, vol. 2, ed. H. Putnam, 291–303. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Quine, W.V.O. 1960. Word and object. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Rosenberg, A. 2001a. Reductionism in a historical science. Philosophy of Science 68(2): 135–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rosenberg, A. 2001b. How is biological explanation possible? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52(4): 735–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosenberg, A. 2001c. On multiple realization and the special sciences. Journal of Philosophy 98(7): 365–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schaffner, K. 1993. Discovery and explanation in biology and medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Sober, E. 1997. Two outbreaks of lawlessness in recent philosophy of biology. Philosophy of Science 64(Proc.): S458–S467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Starling, E.H. 1918. Linacre lecture on law of the heart. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.Google Scholar
  31. Steenstrup, J.J.Sm. 1845. On the alternation of generations. London: Ray Society.Google Scholar
  32. van Fraassen, B.C. 1989. Laws and symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Waters, C.K. 1998. Causal regularities in the biological world of contingent distributions. Biology and Philosophy 13(1): 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weber, M. 1999. The aim and structure of ecological theory. Philosophy of Science 66: 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations