Ideas from 'Can Mechanisms Replace Laws of Nature?' by Bert Leuridan [2010], by Theme Structure

[found in 'Philosophy of Science' (ed/tr -) [- ,]].

Click on the Idea Number for the full details    |     back to texts     |     expand these ideas


14. Science / D. Explanation / 2. Types of Explanation / d. Lawlike explanations
Generalisations must be invariant to explain anything
14. Science / D. Explanation / 2. Types of Explanation / g. Explanations by function
Biological functions are explained by disposition, or by causal role
14. Science / D. Explanation / 2. Types of Explanation / h. Explanations by mechanism
Mechanisms are ontologically dependent on regularities
We can show that regularities and pragmatic laws are more basic than mechanisms
Mechanisms can't explain on their own, as their models rest on pragmatic regularities
Mechanisms must produce macro-level regularities, but that needs micro-level regularities
14. Science / D. Explanation / 3. Best Explanation / b. Ultimate explanation
There is nothing wrong with an infinite regress of mechanisms and regularities
26. Natural Theory / A. Heart of Nature / 3. Natural Function
Rather than dispositions, functions may be the element that brought a thing into existence
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 3. Laws and Generalities
Pragmatic laws allow prediction and explanation, to the extent that reality is stable
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 4. Regularities / a. Regularity theory
Strict regularities are rarely discovered in life sciences
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 12. Against Laws of Nature
A 'law of nature' is just a regularity, not some entity that causes the regularity