David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Dialectica 52 (2):83–101 (1998)
SummaryThere are two rival ways in which events in the world can be explained: the covering law way and the dispositionalist way. The covering law model, which takes the law of nature as its fundamental explanatory unit, faces a number of renown difficulties. Rather than attempt to patch up this approach, the alternative dispositionalist strategy is recommended. On this view, general facts are dependent upon particular facts about what things do, rather than vice versa. This way of viewing the world is not only more intuitive but also handles some of the notorious problems faced by laws; such as those of probabilistic and unrealized facts. The dispositionalist strategy faces its own difficulties of explaining generality and contingency of behaviour. It is shown, however, that at least these difficulties should not dissuade the dispositionalist. The prospects for a convincing dispositionalist ontology to replace one based on laws of nature are thus healthy
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Robert Kowalenko (2014). Ceteris Paribus Laws: A Naturalistic Account. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 28 (2):133-155.
Timothy Pritchard (2011). Miracles and Violations. Religious Studies 47 (1):41-58.
Similar books and articles
Hindy Najman (2003). A Written Copy of the Law of Nature : An Unthinkable Paradox? In David T. Runia, Gregory E. Sterling & Hindy Najman (eds.), The Studia Philonica Annual. Brown University 54-63.
Norman Swartz, Laws of Nature. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.
John Roberts (2010). Some Laws of Nature Are Metaphysically Contingent. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (3):445-457.
Richard Swinburne (2004). The Argument From Laws of Nature Reassessed. In M. Ruse & W. Dembski (eds.), Debating Design: From Darwin to Dna. Cambridge Univ Pr
Marc Lange (2009). Laws and Lawmakers: Science, Metaphysics, and the Laws of Nature. Oxford University Press.
Nancy Cartwright (1997). Models: The Blueprints for Laws. Philosophy of Science 64 (4):303.
David Hodgson (2001). Constraint, Empowerment, and Guidance: A Conjectural Classification of Laws of Nature. Philosophy 76 (3):341-370.
Stephen Mumford (2005). Laws and Lawlessness. Synthese 144 (3):397?413.
Stephen Mumford (2004). Laws in Nature. Routledge.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads161 ( #24,041 of 1,934,374 )
Recent downloads (6 months)11 ( #48,396 of 1,934,374 )
How can I increase my downloads?