Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-23T16:17:43.497Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dimensions of Scientific Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Sandra D. Mitchell
Sandra D. Mitchell*
Affiliation:
History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Biological knowledge does not fit the image of science that philosophers have developed. Many argue that biology has no laws. Here I criticize standard normative accounts of law and defend an alternative, pragmatic approach. I argue that a multidimensional conceptual framework should replace the standard dichotomous law/accident distinction in order to display important differences in the kinds of causal structure found in nature and the corresponding scientific representations of those structures. To this end I explore the dimensions of stability, strength, and degree of abstraction that characterize the variety of scientific knowledge claims found in biology and other sciences.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 67 , Issue 2 , June 2000 , pp. 242 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by 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

†

Send requests for reprints to the author, Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, 1017 Cathedral of Learing, Pittsburgh, PA 15260.

‡

The research for this paper was supported by National Science Foundation. Science and Technology Studies Program. Grant No. 9710615. An earlier version was read at the American Philosophical Association, Eastern Division Meetings, December 1998. I wish to thank Joel M. Smith for inspiring criticisms and suggestions, Michael Weisberg for able research assistance, and Peter Machamer, Nancy Cartwright, and the two referees for insightful comments.

References

Beatty, John (1987), “Why Do Biologists Argue Like They Do?”, Philosophy of Science 64 (Proceedings): S432–S443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beatty, John. (1995), “The Evolutionary Contingency Thesis”, in Wolters, G. and. Lennox, J. G. (eds.), Concepts, Theories, and Rationality in the Biological Sciences. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 45–81.Google Scholar
Brandon, Robert (1978), “Adaptation and Evolutionary Theory”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 9: 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf (1950), “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology “ Revue Internationale de Philosophie 4: 20–40. Reprinted in the supplement to R. Carnap (1956), Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic, enlarged ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy (1974), “Fundamentalism vs. the Patchwork of Laws”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 103, 279–292.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. (1989), Nature's Capacities and Their Measurement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. (1999), The Dappled World: A Study on the Boundaries of Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, P. A. (1989), The Elements: Their Origin, Abundance, and Distribution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dretske, Fred (1977), “Laws of Nature”, Philosophy of Science 44, 248–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, John (1984), “Laws of Nature: The Empiricist's Challenge”, in Bogdan, R. J. (ed.), D. M. Armstrong. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 191–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eco, Umberto (1994) “On the Impossibility of Drawing a Map of the Empire on a Scale of 1 to 1”, in How to Travel with a Salmon and Other Essays. New York: Harcourt Brace, 84–94.Google Scholar
Feynman, Richard (1995), The Character of Physical Law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haroche, Serge and Kleppner, Daniel (1989), “Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics”, Physics Today 1, 24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, Carl (1945) “Studies in the Logic of Confirmation”, Mind 54, 97–121. Reprinted in C. G. Hempel (1965), Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre (1970), “The Methodology of Scientific Research Programs”, in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 91–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mach, Ernst (1883), The Science of Mechanics [6th edition, 1960]. LaSalle, IL: Open Court Publishing.Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst (1982), The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Sandra D. (1993), “Dispositions or Etiologies? A Comment on Bigelow and Pargetter”, Journal of Philosophy 90: 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Sandra D. (1997), “Pragmatic Laws”, Philosophy of Science 64: S468–S479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pool, Robert (1997), “Why Nature Loves Economies of Scale”, New Scientist, April 12: 16.Google Scholar
Reif, Frederick (1987), Statistical Physics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Alexander (1985), The Structure of Biological Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, Bryan (1980), Causal Necessity: A Pragmatic Investigation of the Necessity of Laws. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Smart, Jack (1968), Between Science and Philosophy: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott (1997), “Two Outbreaks of Lawlessness in Recent Philosophy of Biology”, Philosophy of Science 64 (Proceedings): S458–S467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spirtes, Peter, Glymour, Clark, and Scheines, Richard (1993), Causation, Prediction, and Search. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, Patrick (1984), Probabilistic Metaphysics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Weinert, Friedel (1995), Laws of Nature. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, Geoffrey, Brown, James H., and Enquist, Brian J. (1997), “A General Model for the Origin of Allometric Scaling Laws in Biology”, Science 276, 122–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woodward, James (1997), “Explanation, Invariance, and Intervention”, Philosophy of Science 64 (Proceedings), S26–S41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar