David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 162 (2):319-332 (2013)
Many necessitarians about cause and law (Armstrong 1983; Mumford 2004; Bird 2007) have argued that Humeans are unable to justify their inductive inferences, as Humean laws are nothing but the sum of their instances. In this paper I argue against these necessitarian claims. I show that Armstrong is committed to the explanatory value of Humean laws (in the form of universally quantified statements), and that contra Armstrong, brute regularities often do have genuine explanatory value. I finish with a Humean attempt at a probabilistic justification of induction, but this fails due to its assumption that the proportionality syllogism is justified. Although this attempt fails, I nonetheless show that the Humean is at least as justified in reasoning inductively as Armstrong.
|Keywords||Humeanism Regularity theory Laws of nature Problem of induction Explanation Hume Armstrong Law of large numbers|
|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 (1983). What is a Law of Nature? Cambridge University Press.
Alexander Bird (2007). Nature's Metaphysics: Laws and Properties. Oxford University Press.
Alexander Bird (2005). The Ultimate Argument Against Armstrong's Contingent Necessitation View of Laws. Analysis 65 (286):147-55.
Scott Campbell & James Franklin (2004). Randomness and the Justification of Induction. Synthese 138 (1):79 - 99.
B. D. Ellis (2001). Scientific Essentialism. Cambridge University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Mark Schroeder (2007). Weighting for a Plausible Humean Theory of Reasons. Noûs 41 (1):110–132.
Barry Ward (2003). Sometimes the World is Not Enough: The Pursuit of Explanatory Laws in a Humean World. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 84 (2):175–197.
Harold W. Noonan (2010). Bird Against the Humeans. Ratio 23 (1):73-86.
Helen Beebee & Alfred R. Mele (2002). Humean Compatibilism. Mind 111 (442):201-223.
Barry Ward (2007). Laws, Explanation, Governing, and Generation. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (4):537 – 552.
John Earman & John T. Roberts (2005). Contact with the Nomic: A Challenge for Deniers of Humean Supervenience About Laws of Nature Part I: Humean Supervenience. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 71 (1):1–22.
John Roberts, Contact with the Nomic: A Challenge for Deniers of Humean Supervenience About Laws of Nature.
Max Kistler (2005). Necessary Laws. In Jan Faye, Paul Needham, Uwe Scheffler & Max Urchs (eds.), Nature’s Principles. Springer. 201-227.
Michael Drieschner (2005). Popper and Synthetic Judgements a Priori. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 36 (1):49 - 61.
Bat-Ami Bar On (1987). Could There Be a Humean Sex-Neutral General Idea of Man? Philosophy Research Archives 13:367-377.
Stephen Mumford (2005). Laws and Lawlessness. Synthese 144 (3):397?413.
Mark van Roojen (1995). Humean Motivation and Humean Rationality. Philosophical Studies 79 (1):37-57.
Added to index2011-07-02
Total downloads176 ( #6,144 of 1,696,562 )
Recent downloads (6 months)13 ( #43,589 of 1,696,562 )
How can I increase my downloads?