Biology In The Presence Of A Law Of Nature

Abstract:The discussion of the issue that’is there a law in biology?’is the continuation of the traditional talk about laws of nature in philosophy of science on the one hand, and an extension to traditional problems brought about by the philosophy of biology on the other hand. For one thing, as one of those central issues in the general philosophy of science, the radiation of domains it covers consists of almost all of the basic problems in philosophy of science (e.g. the structure of theories, scientific explanation and prediction, the demarcation problem, the problem of changes in science, induction problem, etc.), and what scholars shed light upon it differs sharply from each other. For another, the discipline of biology, as a significant branch of natural sciences, poses a really big puzzlement to philosophers with respect to the problem of laws:it seems impossible for them to find something in biology that corresponds to the image of laws in their brain. Therefore, it is not without possibility that thoughts based on biology may radically carve out our human beings’knowledge about laws of nature, as well as deepen our understanding of the uniqueness of biological systems and the status of biology as a branch in natural sciences.After investigations of several representative views regarding laws of nature, this essay finally comes to its own standpoint that laws of nature are something with metaphysical necessity or physical/natural necessity plus regularities. Metaphysical necessity or physical/natural necessity is the fundamental property of laws of nature which makes laws different from accidental events in principle, whilst regularities are the most typically external symptoms of laws of nature which enable us to find a sign to identify them easily-though this identification is mistakable sometimes. More specifically, things with metaphysical necessity are meta-laws, such as the Law of Conservation of Energy, whereas things with physical/natural necessity are first-order laws, such as Newton Law of Gravitation. The strength of metaphysical necessity is much stronger than physical/natural necessity, while both of them are weak than a priori necessity and are regulated by the latter. Thus, necessity constitutes a hierarchical structure whose strength declines by degrees:a priori necessity-metaphysical necessity-physical/natural necessity-on-necessity (i.e. accidental events). The gain of the concept of’a priori necessity’ is instantiated by the analysis of the concept of ’causation’, and its ultimately establishment hinges on the a priori argument and the concept of’life form’. The concept of ’metaphysical necessity’ and’physical/natural necessity’are obtained by virtue of the concept of ’a priori necessity’ we have gained, which lays a foundation and constraint for the former one.Assisted with the concept of ’laws of nature’ elucidated articulatedly, investigating those representative viewpoints regarding laws of nature and relied on the analysis and exploration of the biological kingdom itself, we eventually arrive at the conclusion that there is no such thing as a law in biology-the reason is that we find nothing in the biological kingdom as metaphysical or physical/natural necessity explicated in this essay.