Reply to skow

Abstract We have argued against a standard way of defining Humean supervenience about laws, and in favor of an alternative definition. Skow says that our argument against the standard definition makes a big mistake. He is right about this. But that mistake is correctable. Skow also argues that our alternative definition is seriously flawed. We think he is wrong about this.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 5,882
External links
  • Through your library Configure

    Similar books and articles
    Bradford Skow (2011). ''One Second Per Second''. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85 (2):377-389.
    Bradford Skow (2007). Earman and Roberts on Empiricism About Laws. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 75 (1):158-162.
    Bradford Skow (2007). Earman and Roberts on Empiricism About Laws. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 75 (1):158-162.
    Bradford Skow (2007). Earman and Roberts on Empiricism About Laws. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 75 (1):158–162.
    John T. Roberts (2007). Reply to Skow. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 75 (1):163-167.

    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2009-01-28

    Total downloads

    6 ( #147,143 of 556,909 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    0

    How can I increase my downloads?


    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.

    Other forums