Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:31:18.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biology and a Priori Laws

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Mehmet Elgin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, I investigate the nature of a priori biological laws in connection with the idea that laws must be empirical. I argue that the epistemic functions of a priori biological laws in biology are the same as those of empirical laws in physics. Thus, the requirement that laws be empirical is idle in connection with how laws operate in science. This result presents a choice between sticking with an unmotivated philosophical requirement and taking the functional equivalence of laws seriously and modifying our philosophical account. I favor the latter.

Type
Laws and Causation
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 70 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2002 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers , December 2003 , pp. 1380 - 1389
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

My special thanks to Elliott Sober for reading all the earlier drafts of this paper and for discussing it with me. I also thank to Ellery Eells, Berent Enç, Malcolm Forster, Daniel Hausman, Fatih Öztürk, Larry Shapiro, and Joel Velasco for their comments and suggestions.

References

Anscombe, Gertrude Elizabeth M. (1971), Causality and Determination. Cambridge: The University Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, David M. (1983), What Is a Law of Nature? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy (1983), How Do the Laws of Physics Lie? Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy (2002), “In Favor of Laws That Are Not Ceteris Paribus After All”, forthcoming in the special edition of Erkenntnis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creary, Lewis G. (1981), “Causal Explanation and the Reality of Component Forces”, Causal Explanation and the Reality of Component Forces 62:148–157.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald (1995), “Laws and Cause”, Laws and Cause 49:263–279.Google Scholar
Dretske, Fred (1977), “Laws of Nature”, Laws of Nature 44:248–268.Google Scholar
Earman, John, and Friedman, Michael (1973), “The Meaning and Status of Newton's Law of Inertia and the Nature of Gravitational Forces”, The Meaning and Status of Newton's Law of Inertia and the Nature of Gravitational Forces 40(3): 329–359.Google Scholar
Earman, John, and Roberts, John (1999), “Ceteris Paribus, There Is No Problem of Provisos”, Ceteris Paribus, There Is No Problem of Provisos 118:439–478.Google Scholar
Earman, John, Roberts, John, and Smith, Sheldon (2002), “Ceteris Paribus, Lost”, forthcoming in the special edition of Erkenntnis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgin, Mehmet and Sober, Elliott (2002), “Cartwright on Explanation and Idealization”, forthcoming in a special edition of Erkenntnis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry (1991), “You Can Fool Some of the People All of the Time, Everything Else Being Equal; Hedged Laws and Psychological Explanations”, You Can Fool Some of the People All of the Time, Everything Else Being Equal; Hedged Laws and Psychological Explanations 100:19–34.Google Scholar
Forster, Malcolm R. (1988a), “The Confirmation of Common Component Causes”, in A. Fine and J. Leplin (eds.), Philosophy of Science Association 1:3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, Malcolm R. (1988b), “Unification, Explanation, and the Composition of Causes in Newtonian Mechanics”, Unification, Explanation, and the Composition of Causes in Newtonian Mechanics 19:55–101.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald (1984), Understanding Science. New York: CBS Collage Publishing.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald (1999), Science without Laws. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goodman, Nelson (1965), Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. (1965), Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Lange, Marc (2000), Natural Laws in Scientific Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lange, Marc (2002), “Who's Afraid of Ceteris-Paribus Laws? Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Them”, forthcoming in the special edition of Erkenntnis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David (1983), “New Work for a Theory of Universals”, New Work for a Theory of Universals 61:343–377.Google Scholar
Lipton, Peter (1999), “All Else Being Equal”, All Else Being Equal 74:155–168.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Sandra (1997), “Pragmatic Laws”, Pragmatic Laws 64:468–479.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Sandra (2000), “Dimensions of Scientific Law”, Dimensions of Scientific Law 67:242–265.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Sandra (2002), “Biological Contingency and Laws”, forthcoming in the special edition of Erkenntnis.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Stephen (1991), “Ceteris Paribus Laws”, Ceteris Paribus Laws 100:1–17.Google Scholar
Scriven, Michael (1959), “Trusim as the Grounds for Historical Explanations”, in Gardiner, P. (ed.), Theories of History. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Scriven, Michael (1962), “Explanation, Prediction, and Laws”, in Feigl, H. and Maxwell, Grover (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science: Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time. Vol. 3. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Silverberg, Arnold (1996), “Psychological Laws and Non-Monotonic Logic”, Psychological Laws and Non-Monotonic Logic 44(2): 199–224.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott (1984), The Nature of Selection. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott (1997), “Two Outbreaks of Lawlessness in Recent Philosophy of Biology”, Two Outbreaks of Lawlessness in Recent Philosophy of Biology 64:458–467.Google Scholar
Stegmüller, Wolfgang (1976), The Structure and Dynamics of Theories. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stegmüller, Wolfgang (1979), The Structuralist View of Theories: A Possible Program of the Bourbaki Programme in Physical Science. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppe, Frederick (1989), The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Tooley, Michael (1977), “The Nature of Laws”, The Nature of Laws 7:667–698.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, Bas C. (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, Bas C. (1989), Laws and Symmetry. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, James (2000), “Explanation and Invariance in the Special Sciences”, Explanation and Invariance in the Special Sciences 51 (2): 197–254..Google Scholar
Woodward, James (2001), “Law and Explanation in Biology: Invariance Is the Kind of Stability That Matters”, Law and Explanation in Biology: Invariance Is the Kind of Stability That Matters 68(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Woodward, James (2002), “There Is No Such Thing as a Ceteris Paribus Law”, forthcoming in the special edition of Erkenntnis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar