Abstract
J. J. C Smart (1963) once argued that biology is unlike the physical sciences because there are no laws in biology. While physics and chemistry can construct general theories centered on genuine laws, biology is limited to case studies that make use of the laws of physics and chemistry: biology is more like engineering than it is like the physical sciences. The debate about biological laws has continued since Smart’s condemnation of laws in biology, drawing both philosophers and biologists into its wake. For instance, Mayr (1988) argues that one of the chief differences between biology and the physical sciences is that biology has no genuine laws. Hull (1978) claims that since species and taxa are individuals and not natural kinds, no statements that refer to species or taxa can be construed as laws. Waters (1986) asserts that the principle of natural selection is not a law, and Beatty (1981) argues that the laws of population genetics are not laws. On the other side, Brandon (1981), Sober (1984), Rosenberg (1985), and Resnik (1988) argue that the principle of natural selection is a law, and Rosenberg (1985) asserts that molecular biology also contains laws. Finally, van der Steen and Kamminga (1991) discuss the tension between laws and natural history in biology. In this paper I will examine the argument against developmental laws in more depth. I will agree with the neo-Darwinian orthodoxy that the socalled developmental laws proposed by the process structuralists are not genuine biological laws, although I will not accept the standard arguments for this position. The standard arguments against biological laws claim that biological generalizations are not laws because they describe mere accidental, historical features of the living world. I will argue that, on the contrary, a statement could be a law even though it may describe accidental (or historical) features of the world. Whether a statement is a law depends on the role it plays in inquiry: laws typically play a more central role in inquiry than accidental generalizations. Thus, the reason why the laws proposed by the developmental biologists are not laws of nature is that
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
