David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theoria 12 (2):337-342 (1997)
Armstrong (1983) poses two requirements that law-statements must satisfy in order to support the corresponding counterfactuals. He also argues that law-statements can not satisfy one of these requirements if they merely express regularities, although both requirements are satisfied if law-statements are interpreted as expressing relations between universals. I try to show that Armstrong’s argument can be raised against Armstrong’s own solution by adding three premisses to it: the inference thesis, the contingency thesis and a principle whose rationality I also argue for. Finally, I offer a more reasonable alternative condition for nomic counterfactual supporting which is satisfied by law-statements if they are interpreted as expressing relations between universals, but not so if we interpret them as mere regularities
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Joan Page`S. (2002). The Dretske–Tooley–Armstrong Theory of Natural Laws and the Inference Problem. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 16 (3):227-243.
John Bolender (2006). Nomic Universals and Particular Causal Relations: Which Are Basic and Which Are Derived? Philosophia 34 (4):405-410.
D. M. Armstrong (1983). What is a Law of Nature? Cambridge University Press.
D. H. Mellor (1990). Laws, Chances and Properties. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 4 (2):159 – 170.
Mario Bunge (1961). Kinds and Criteria of Scientific Laws. Philosophy of Science 28 (3):260-281.
Benjamin Smart (2013). Is the Humean Defeated by Induction? Philosophical Studies 162 (2):319-332.
Philip L. Peterson (1988). Which Universal? PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:24 - 30.
Joan Pag (2002). The Dretske-Tooley-Armstrong Theory of Natural Laws and the Inference Problem. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 16 (3):227 – 243.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads1 ( #446,540 of 1,102,969 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #297,509 of 1,102,969 )
How can I increase my downloads?