Erkenntnis 87 (2):545-566 (2022)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
This paper aims to explain why the laws of nature are held fixed in counterfactual reasoning. I begin by highlighting three salient features of counterfactual reasoning: it is conservative, nomically guided, and it uses hindsight. I then present a rationale for our engagement in counterfactual reasoning that aims to make sense of these features. In particular, I argue that counterfactual reasoning helps us evaluate the evidential relations between unanticipated pieces of evidence and various hypotheses of interest about the history of the actual world. Given this goal, it makes a great deal of sense that counterfactual reasoning would have the aforementioned features. Additionally, it turns out that this account of counterfactual reasoning is nicely congruent with Humean views of laws. Specifically, it can explain, in a Humean-friendly way, both why the laws are counterfactually resilient, and why we may be inclined to have anti-Humean intuitions in the first place, even if some form of Humeanism is correct.
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1007/s10670-019-00207-1 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation.James Woodward - 2003 - Oxford University Press.
View all 52 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
Revisiting McKay and Johnson's Counterexample to Beta.Pedro Merlussi - forthcoming - Philosophical Explorations:1-15.
Similar books and articles
Laws and Counterfactuals: Defusing an Argument Against the Humean View of Laws.Kaave Lajevardi - 2011 - Dialogue 50 (4):751-758.
Humean Laws and (Nested) Counterfactuals.Christian Loew & Siegfried Jaag - 2019 - Philosophical Quarterly 70 (278):93-113.
Counterfactual Reasoning (Philosophical Aspects)—Quantitative.Alan Hájek - 2002 - In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier. pp. 2872-2874.
A Note on Scientific Essentialism, Laws of Nature, and Counterfactual Conditionals.Marc Lange - 2004 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (2):227 – 241.
Basic Conditional Reasoning: How Children Mimic Counterfactual Reasoning.Brian Leahy, Eva Rafetseder & Josef Perner - 2014 - Studia Logica 102 (4):793-810.
Popper on Laws and Counterfactuals.Danilo Šuster - 2005 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 5 (1):109-119.
Counterfactual Reasoning and the Problem of Selecting Antecedent Scenarios.Noel Hendrickson - 2012 - Synthese 185 (3):365-386.
Why Are the Laws of Nature So Important to Science?Marc Lange - 1999 - Philosophical and Phenomenological Research 59 (3):625-652.
Do the Closest Counterfactual Worlds Contain Miracles?Phillip Goggans - 1992 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 73 (2):137 - 149.
Why Are the Laws of Nature so Important to Science?Marc Lange - 1999 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 59 (3):625-652.
Causation Sans Time.Sam Baron & Kristie Miller - 2015 - American Philosophical Quarterly 52 (1):27-40.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2020-01-02
Total views
80 ( #143,356 of 2,499,037 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
22 ( #39,246 of 2,499,037 )
2020-01-02
Total views
80 ( #143,356 of 2,499,037 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
22 ( #39,246 of 2,499,037 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads