David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Croatian Journal of Philosophy 5 (1):109-119 (2005)
According to the received view, the regularity “All F’s are G” is a real law of nature only if it supports a counterfactual conditional “If x were an F (but actually it is not), it would be a G”. Popper suggested a different approach -- universal generalisations differ from accidental generalisations in the structure of their terms. Terms in accidental generalisations are closed, extensional and terms in laws of nature are open, strictly universal, intensional. But Popper failed to develop this point and used a mistaken and unnatural interpretation of counterfactual assumptions in order to defend the view that both laws of nature and accidental generalisations support counterfactuals. The idea that terms in laws of nature stand for intensions was developed twenty-five years later in the so called DTA theory, which explains laws of nature as relations between properties
|Keywords||laws of nature counterfactuals Popper|
|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
Kaave Lajevardi (2011). Laws and Counterfactuals: Defusing an Argument Against the Humean View of Laws. Dialogue 50 (04):751-758.
Heather Demarest (2012). Do Counterfactuals Ground the Laws of Nature? A Critique of Lange. Philosophy of Science 79 (3):333-344.
Jens Harbecke (2011). Mind in a Humean World. Metaphysica 12 (2):213-229.
Michael Esfeld (2010). Causal Overdetermination for Humeans? Metaphysica 11 (2):99-104.
David N. Stamos (2007). Popper, Laws, and the Exclusion of Biology From Genuine Science. Acta Biotheoretica 55 (4):357-375.
Stephen Barker (2011). Can Counterfactuals Really Be About Possible Worlds? Noûs 45 (3):557-576.
Jakob Hohwy (2003). Capacities, Explanation and the Possibility of Disunity. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17 (2):179 – 190.
Marc Lange (2004). A Note on Scientific Essentialism, Laws of Nature, and Counterfactual Conditionals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (2):227 – 241.
John-Michael Kuczynski (2005). Counterfactuals: The Epistemic Analysis. Philosophia Scientiae 9 (1):83-126.
Adam Morton (1973). If I Were a Dry Well-Made Match. Dialogue 12 (2):322-324.
Marc Lange (2005). Laws and Their Stability. Synthese 144 (3):415Ð432.
Z. Yudell (2013). Lange's Challenge: Accounting for Meta-Laws. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (2):347-369.
Marc Lange (1999). Why Are the Laws of Nature so Important to Science? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 59 (3):625-652.
John T. Roberts (2008). The Law-Governed Universe. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads124 ( #34,789 of 1,932,585 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #102,950 of 1,932,585 )
How can I increase my downloads?