David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Helen Beebee & Nigel Sabbarton-Leary (eds.), The Semantics and Metaphysics of Natural Kinds. Routledge (2010)
Humeans and non-Humeans reasonably agree that there may be necessary connections between entities that are identical or merely partly distinct—between, e.g., sets and their individual members, fusions and their individual parts, instances of determinates and determinables, members of certain natural kinds and certain of their intrinsic properties, and (especially among physicalists) certain physical and mental states. Humeans maintain, however, that as per “Hume’s Dictum”, there are no necessary connections between entities that are wholly distinct;1 and in particular, no necessary causal connections between such entities (even when the background conditions requisite for causation are in place). The Humean’s differential treatment appears principled, in reflecting that commonly accepted necessary connections involve constitutional relations, whereas wholly distinct entities (notably, causes and effects) do not constitute each other. I’ll argue, however, that the appearance of principle is not genuine, as per the following conditional: Constitutional→Causal: If one accepts certain constitutional necessities, one should accept certain causal necessities. This result provides needed leverage in assessing the two main frameworks in the metaphysics of science, treating natural kinds, causes, laws of nature, and the like. These frameworks differ primarily on whether Hume’s Dictum is taken as a working constraint on theorizing; and it has proved difficult for either side to criticize the other without presupposing their preferred stance on the dictum, hence talking past one another. The arguments for Constitutional→Causal are based, however, in general and independent considerations about what facts in the world might plausibly warrant our beliefs in certain constitutional necessities involving broadly scientific entities. The Humean can respond to these arguments, which reveal a deep tension in their view, at attendant costs of implausibilty and adhocery. The non-Humean framework doesn’t face any such tension between constitutional and causal necessities, however, and so in this respect comes out ahead.
|Keywords||necessary connections Hume Hume's Dictum laws of nature|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Muhammad Ali Khalidi (2009). How Scientific is Scientific Essentialism? Journal for General Philosophy of Science 40 (1):85 - 101.
Antony Flew (1976). Natural Necessities and Causal Powers. Hume Studies 2 (2):86-94.
Aisling Crean (2010). Humean Humility. Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy (Special Issue edited by Helen Beebee and Markus Schrenk) 13.
Louis deRosset (2009). Production and Necessity. Philosophical Review 118 (2):153-181.
Markus Schrenk (2010). The Powerlessness of Necessity. Noûs 44 (4):725-739.
Brian Ellis (2000). Causal Laws and Singular Causation. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (2):329-351.
Jessica M. Wilson (forthcoming). Hume's Dictum and Natural Modality: Counterfactuals. In Alastair Wilson (ed.), Asymmetries of Time and Chance.
Daniel Stoljar (2007). Distinctions in Distinction. In Jesper Kallestrup & Jakob Hohwy (eds.), Being Reduced: New Essays on Causation and Explanation in the Special Sciences. Oxford University Press.
Charles Hartshorne (1954). Causal Necessities: An Alternative to Hume. Philosophical Review 63 (4):479-499.
Jessica M. Wilson (2010). What is Hume's Dictum, and Why Believe It? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 80 (3):595 - 637.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads67 ( #17,286 of 1,003,359 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #38,982 of 1,003,359 )
How can I increase my downloads?