Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T04:25:19.993Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pragmatic Laws

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Sandra D. Mitchell
Sandra D. Mitchell*
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
*
†Department of Philosophy, University of California—San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0119.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Beatty, Brandon, and Sober agree that biological generalizations, when contingent, do not qualify as laws. Their conclusion follows from a normative definition of law inherited from the Logical Empiricists. I suggest two additional approaches: paradigmatic and pragmatic. Only the pragmatic represents varying kinds and degrees of contingency and exposes the multiple relationships found among scientific generalizations. It emphasizes the function of laws in grounding expectation and promotes the evaluation of generalizations along continua of ontological and representational parameters. Stability of conditions and strength of determination in nature govern projectibility. Accuracy, ontological level, simplicity, and manageability provide additional measures of usefulness.

Information

Type
Symposium: Are There Laws of Biology?
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 64 , Issue S4: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1996 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers Dec., 1997 , 1997, pp. S468 - S479
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1997

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

‡

I wish to thank Joel M. Smith for extremely valuable critical and constructive comments.

References

Beatty, J. (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, pp. 45–81.Google Scholar
Beatty, J. (1997), “Why Do Biologists Argue Like They Do?”, this issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandon, R. (1997), “Does Biology Have Laws? The Experimental Evidence”, this issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrier, M. (1995), “Evolutionary Change and Lawlikeness: Beatty on Biological Generalizations”, in Wolters, G. and Lennox, J. G. (eds.), Concepts, Theories, and Rationality in the Biological Sciences. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 82–97.Google Scholar
Mitchell, S. D. (1992), “On Pluralism and Competition in Evolutionary Biology”, American Zoologist 32: 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, S. D. (1997), “Complexity and Pluralism” in G. Smith (ed.), Vom Verständnis der Natur. Berlin: Akademie Verlag Berlin, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Mitchell, S. D., Daston, R., Gigerenzer, G., Sesardic, N., and Sloep, P. (1997), “The Hows and Whys of Interdisciplinarity”, in Weingart, P., Mitchell, S. D., Richerson, P., and Maasen, S. (eds.), Human by Nature: Between Biology and the Social Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 103–150.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1997), “Two Outbreaks of Lawlessness in Recent Philosophy of Biology”, this issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar