Graduate studies at Western
Analysis 61 (4):267–274 (2001)
|Abstract||In this paper I aim to show that a certain law of nature, namely that common salt (sodium chloride) dissolves in water, is metaphysically necessary. The importance of this result is that it conﬂicts with a widely shared intuition that the laws of nature (most if not all) are contingent. There have been debates over whether some laws, such as Newton’s second law, might be deﬁnitional of their key terms and hence necessary. But the law that salt dissolves in water is not that kind of law. The law statement ‘salt dissolves in water’ is clearly synthetic. It appears a classic case of a contingent law. We like to believe that there are possible worlds in which the laws of nature are different and in which salt does not dissolve in water.|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Similar books and articles
Alexander Bird (2002). Laws and Criteria. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 32 (4):511-42.
Markus Schrenk (2005). The Bookkeeper and the Lumberjack. Metaphysical Vs. Nomological Necessity. In G. Abel (ed.), Kreativität. XX. Deutscher Kongress für Philosophie. Sektionsbeiträge Band 1. Universitätsverlag der Technischen Universität.
Stathis Psillos (2002). Salt Does Dissolve in Water, but Not Necessarily. Analysis 62 (3):255–257.
Joseph E. Earley (2005). Why There is No Salt in the Sea. Foundations of Chemistry 7 (1):85-102.
Alexander Bird (2005). Unexpected a Posteriori Necessary Laws of Nature. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 83 (4):533 – 548.
Erik Anderson (2005). How General is Generalized Scientific Essentialism? Synthese 144 (3):373 - 379.
Alexander Bird (2002). On Whether Some Laws Are Necessary. Analysis 62 (3):257–270.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads56 ( #21,412 of 739,367 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #26,423 of 739,367 )
How can I increase my downloads?