David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 37 (4):527-549 (2006)
The relationship between conceptions of law and conceptions of nature is a complex one, and proceeds on what appear to be two distinct fronts. On the one hand, we frequently talk of nature as being lawlike or as obeying laws. On the other hand there are schools of philosophy that seek to justify ethics generally, or legal theory specifically, in conceptions of nature. Questions about the historical origins and development of claims that nature is lawlike are generally treated as entirely distinct from the development of ethical natural law theories. By looking at the many intersections of law and nature in antiquity, this paper shows that such a sharp distinction is overly simplistic, and often relies crucially on the imposition of an artificial and anachronistic suppression of the role of gods or divinity in the worlds of ancient natural philosophy. Furthermore, by tightening up the terms of the debate, we see that the common claim that a conception of [`]laws of nature' only emerges in the Scientific Revolution is built on a superficial reading of the ancient evidence
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
D. M. Armstrong (1978). Universals and Scientific Realism. Cambridge University Press.
John Beatty (1997). Why Do Biologists Argue Like They Do? Philosophy of Science 64 (4):443.
Daniel Bennett (1969). Essential Properties. Journal of Philosophy 66 (15):487-499.
Robert N. Brandon (1997). Does Biology Have Laws? The Experimental Evidence. Philosophy of Science 64 (4):457.
Baruch A. Brody (1973). Why Settle for Anything Less Than Good Old-Fashioned Aristotelian Essentialism. Noûs 7 (4):351-365.
Citations of this work BETA
Travis Dumsday (2013). Laws of Nature Don't Have Ceteris Paribus Clauses, They Are Ceteris Paribus Clauses. Ratio 26 (2):134-147.
Similar books and articles
Destutt de Tracy & Antoine Louis Claude (1811/2006). A Commentary and Review of Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws: Prepared for Press From the Original. Lawbook Exchange.
Marc Lange (2000). Natural Laws in Scientific Practice. Oxford University Press.
Chris Swoyer (1982). The Nature of Natural Laws. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 60 (3):203 – 223.
Marc Lange (2009). Laws and Lawmakers: Science, Metaphysics, and the Laws of Nature. Oxford University Press.
Norman Swartz, Laws of Nature. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
David Hodgson (2001). Constraint, Empowerment, and Guidance: A Conjectural Classification of Laws of Nature. Philosophy 76 (3):341-370.
Tyler Hildebrand (2014). Can Bare Dispositions Explain Categorical Regularities? Philosophical Studies 167 (3):569-584.
Nancy Cartwright (1997). Models: The Blueprints for Laws. Philosophy of Science 64 (4):303.
Z. Yudell (2013). Lange's Challenge: Accounting for Meta-Laws. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (2):347-369.
John Roberts (2010). Some Laws of Nature Are Metaphysically Contingent. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (3):445-457.
Stephen Mumford (2004). Laws in Nature. Routledge.
Duncan Maclean (2012). Armstrong and van Fraassen on Probabilistic Laws of Nature. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 42 (1):1-13.
Fred I. Dretske (1977). Laws of Nature. Philosophy of Science 44 (2):248-268.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads112 ( #9,950 of 1,099,914 )
Recent downloads (6 months)32 ( #5,178 of 1,099,914 )
How can I increase my downloads?