more on this theme | more from this text
Full Idea
Strict regularities are rarely if ever discovered in the life sciences.
Gist of Idea
Strict regularities are rarely discovered in life sciences
Source
Bert Leuridan (Can Mechanisms Replace Laws of Nature? [2010], §2)
Book Ref
-: 'Philosophy of Science' [-], p.5
A Reaction
This is elementary once it is pointed out, but too much philosophy have science has aimed at the model provided by the equations of fundamental physics. Science is a broad church, to employ an entertaining metaphor.
12787 | Mechanisms can't explain on their own, as their models rest on pragmatic regularities [Leuridan] |
14384 | We can show that regularities and pragmatic laws are more basic than mechanisms [Leuridan] |
14382 | Pragmatic laws allow prediction and explanation, to the extent that reality is stable [Leuridan] |
14383 | A 'law of nature' is just a regularity, not some entity that causes the regularity [Leuridan] |
14385 | Strict regularities are rarely discovered in life sciences [Leuridan] |
14387 | Rather than dispositions, functions may be the element that brought a thing into existence [Leuridan] |
14386 | Mechanisms are ontologically dependent on regularities [Leuridan] |
12789 | Biological functions are explained by disposition, or by causal role [Leuridan] |
12790 | Generalisations must be invariant to explain anything [Leuridan] |
14388 | Mechanisms must produce macro-level regularities, but that needs micro-level regularities [Leuridan] |
14389 | There is nothing wrong with an infinite regress of mechanisms and regularities [Leuridan] |