Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-04T01:48:07.273Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Necessary Laws and the Problem of Counterlegals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Samuel Kimpton-Nye
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Substantive counterlegal discourse poses a problem for those according to whom the laws of nature are metaphysically necessary. I discern two types of necessitarianism about laws: dispositional essentialism and modal necessitarianism. I argue that Toby Handfield’s response to the problem of counterlegals cannot help the modal necessitarian, according to whom all possible worlds are identical with respect to the laws. I thus propose a fictionalist treatment of counterlegals. Fictions are not limited by metaphysical possibility; hence, fictionalism affords the modal necessitarian the means to account for the apparent substance of counterlegals even granting the metaphysical necessity of the laws.

Type
Articles
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 87 , Issue 3 , July 2020 , pp. 518 - 535
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I am grateful to Eleanor Knox and to Barbara Vetter for discussion of these ideas and feedback on earlier drafts.

References

Berto, Francesco, and Jago, Mark. 2019. Impossible Worlds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, Alexander. 2004. “Strong Necessitarianism: The Nomological Identity of Possible Worlds.” Ratio 17 (3): 256–76..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, Alexander. 2007. Nature’s Metaphysics: Laws and Properties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bokulich, Alisa. 2011. “How Scientific Models Can Explain.” Synthese 180 (1): 33–45..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borghini, Andrea, and Williams, Neil E. 2008. “A Dispositional Theory of Possibility.” Dialectica 62 (1): 21–41..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brogaard, Berit, and Salerno, Joe. 2013. “Remarks on Counterpossibles.” Synthese 190 (4): 639–60..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, David J. 2006. “Two-Dimensional Semantics.” In The Oxford Handbook to the Philosophy of Language, ed. Lepore, Ernest and Smith, Barry C., 574–607. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, Brian. 2001. Scientific Essentialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. 2002. “Varieties of Necessity.” In Conceivability and Possibility, ed. Gendler, Tamar Szabo and Hawthorne, John, 253–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frigg, Roman. 2010. “Models and Fiction.” Synthese 172 (2): 251–68..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 2009. “Models and Fictions in Science.” Philosophical Studies 143 (1): 101–16..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handfield, Toby. 2004. “Counterlegals and Necessary Laws.” Philosophical Quarterly 54 (216): 402–19..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Jonathan D. 2010. “A Powers Theory of Modality; or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Reject Possible Worlds.” Philosophical Studies 151 (2): 227–48..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, C. S., and Nolan, Daniel. 2012. “Disposition Impossible.” Noûs 46 (4): 732–53..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Linsky, Bernard, and Zalta, Edward N. 1994. “In Defense of the Simplest Quantified Modal Logic.” In Philosophical Perspectives 8: Logic and Language, ed. Tomberlin, J., 431–58. Atascadero: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
Nolan, Daniel. 1997. “Impossible Worlds: A Modest Approach.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 38 (4): 535–72..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, Daniel. 2013. “Impossible Worlds.” Philosophy Compass 8 (4): 360–72..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, Graham. 2016. “Thinking the Impossible.” Philosophical Studies 173 (10): 2649–62..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, Gideon. 1990. “Modal Fictionalism.” Mind 99 (395): 327–54..Google Scholar
Schaffer, Jonathan. 2005. “Quiddistic Knowledge.” Philosophical Studies 123 (1–2): 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1968. “A Theory of Conditionals.” In Studies in Logical Theory, ed. Rescher, Nicholas, 98–112. American Philosophical Quarterly Monographs 2. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tan, Peter. 2019. “Counterpossible Non-vacuity in Scientific Practice.” Journal of Philosophy 116 (1): 32–60..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vetter, Barbara. 2014. “Dispositions without Conditionals.” Mind 123 (489): 129–56..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vetter, Barbara. 2015. Potentiality: From Dispositions to Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vetter, Barbara. 2016. “Counterpossibles (Not Only) for Dispositionalists.” Philosophical Studies 173 (10): 2681–700..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, Kendall L. 1990. Mimesis as Make-Believe: On the Foundations of the Representational Arts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Weisberg, M. 2007. “Who Is a Modeler?” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58 (2): 207–33..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Will, Clifford M. 1988. “Henry Cavendish, Johann von Soldner, and the Deflection of Light.” American Journal of Physics 56 (5): 413–15..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 1998. “Bare Possibilia.” Erkenntnis 48 (2/3): 257–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Alastair. 2013. “Schaffer on Laws of Nature.” Philosophical Studies 164 (3): 653–67..CrossRefGoogle Scholar