Noûs 33 (4):630-643 (1999)

Authors
John F. Halpin
Oakland University
Abstract
character. So, we have learned from early on that laws are meant to portray a sort of necessity in nature. The comings and goings described by law are not merely contingently related. Rather, it is part of the concept of law that these events are connected in some significant way: "nomically" connected. One important desideratum for an account of law, then, is that it respect and perhaps explain this modal character.
Keywords Laws   Philosophy of Science
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/0029-4624.00197
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,425
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Who's Afraid of Undermining?Peter B. M. Vranas - 2002 - Erkenntnis 57 (2):151-174.
Humean Supervenience and Best-System Laws.Lydia Jaeger - 2002 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 16 (2):141 – 155.
General Solution to All Philosophical Problems With Some Exceptions.Wayde Beasley - forthcoming - north of parallel 40: Numerous uncommitted.
Briggs on Antirealist Accounts of Scientific Law.John Halpin - 2013 - Synthese 190 (16):3439–3449.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Explanation and Laws.Alexander Bird - 1999 - Synthese 120 (1):1--18.
Interfering with Nomological Necessity.Markus Schrenk - 2011 - Philosophical Quarterly 61 (244):577-597.
Humean Supervenience and Best-System Laws.Lydia Jaeger - 2002 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 16 (2):141 – 155.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
178 ( #54,770 of 2,420,826 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #351,362 of 2,420,826 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes