Abstract

Relative frequency controversies, so common in the biological sciences, pose something of a puzzle. Why do biologists routinely engage in disputes that (a) are rarely settled and (b) arguably wouldn’t yield interesting knowledge even if they were? Recent work suggests that relative frequency controversies can lead biologists to increase their understanding of the modal profile of the processes under dispute. Here, we consider some further consequences of this view. We contend that relative frequency controversies can generate recurrent, transient underdetermination about which causes are responsible for producing particular effects. As a result, the increases in understanding these controversies provide can come with decreases in biologists’ ability to offer warranted explanations. We argue that this fits with a toolkit view of biological theory, and suggest some implications for the scientific realism debate as it pertains to biological science.