David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Noûs 33 (4):630-643 (1999)
character. So, we have learned from early on that laws are meant to portray a sort of necessity in nature. The comings and goings described by law are not merely contingently related. Rather, it is part of the concept of law that these events are connected in some significant way: "nomically" connected. One important desideratum for an account of law, then, is that it respect and perhaps explain this modal character.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Raymond Woller (1982). Harre and Madden's Multifarious Account of Natural Necessity. Philosophy of Science 49 (4):616-632.
Markus Schrenk (2011). Interfering with Nomological Necessity. Philosophical Quarterly 61 (244):577-597.
Alexander Bird (1999). Explanation and Laws. Synthese 120 (1):1--18.
Ian Howard Dennis (2009). On Necessity as a Defence to Crime: Possibilities, Problems and the Limits of Justification and Excuse. Criminal Law and Philosophy 3 (1):29-49.
Brian Skyrms (1980). Causal Necessity: A Pragmatic Investigation of the Necessity of Laws. Yale University Press.
John F. Halpin (1998). Lewis, Thau, and Hall on Chance and the Best-System Account of Law. Philosophy of Science 65 (2):349-360.
Scott A. Shalkowski (1992). Supervenience and Causal Necessity. Synthese 90 (1):55-87.
Lydia Jaeger (2002). Humean Supervenience and Best-System Laws. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 16 (2):141 – 155.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads73 ( #15,065 of 1,005,807 )
Recent downloads (6 months)35 ( #2,330 of 1,005,807 )
How can I increase my downloads?