David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Quarterly 61 (244):577-597 (2011)
Since causal processes can be prevented and interfered with, law-governed causation is a challenge for necessitarian theories of laws of nature. To show that there is a problematic friction between necessity and interference, I focus on David Armstrong's theory; with one proviso, his lawmaker, nomological necessity, is supposed to be instantiated as the causation of the law's second relatum whenever its first relatum is instantiated. His proviso is supposed to handle interference cases, but fails to do so. In order to be able to handle interferences, any theory which utilizes a kind of necessitation as lawmaker has to downgrade what it treats as necessity to something more akin to (Newtonian) forces
|Keywords||Armstrong exceptions ceteris paribus prevention and interference causation nomological necessity laws of nature|
|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
Duncan Maclean (2012). Armstrong and van Fraassen on Probabilistic Laws of Nature. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 42 (1):1-13.
Tuomas E. Tahko (2015). The Modal Status of Laws: In Defence of a Hybrid View. Philosophical Quarterly 65 (260):509-528.
Olivier Massin (forthcoming). The Composition of Forces. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axv048.
Colin Marshall (2015). Hume Versus the Vulgar on Resistance, Nisus, and the Impression of Power. Philosophical Studies 172 (2):305-319.
Similar books and articles
Uwe Meixner (2004). Causation in a New Old Key. Studia Logica 76 (3):343 - 383.
Markus Schrenk (2010). The Powerlessness of Necessity. Noûs 44 (4):725-739.
Markus Schrenk (2007). Can Capacities Rescue Us From Ceteris Paribus Laws? In B. Gnassounou & M. Kistler (eds.), Dispositions in Philosophy and Science. Ashgate
Marc Lange (2002). Who's Afraid of Ceteris-Paribus Laws? Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Them. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 57 (3):281Ð301.
Brian Skyrms (1966). Nomological Necessity and the Paradoxes of Confirmation. Philosophy of Science 33 (3):230-249.
Predrag Šustar (2005). Nomological and Transcendental Criteria for Scientific Laws. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 5 (3):533-544.
Gerhard Schurz (2001). Pietroski and Rey on Ceteris Paribus Laws. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (2):359Ð370.
Markus Schrenk (2003). Real Ceteris Paribus Laws. In R. Bluhm & C. Nimtz (eds.), Proceedings of GAP.5, Bielefeld 2003. Mentis
Markus Schrenk (2005). The Bookkeeper and the Lumberjack. Metaphysical Vs. Nomological Necessity. In G. Abel (ed.), Kreativität. XX. Deutscher Kongress für Philosophie. Sektionsbeiträge Band 1. Universitätsverlag der Technischen Universität
Added to index2009-04-28
Total downloads214 ( #14,509 of 1,934,364 )
Recent downloads (6 months)18 ( #32,665 of 1,934,364 )
How can I increase my downloads?