Philosophical Papers 46 (3):373-387 (2017)

Authors
Robert J. Hartman
Stockholm University
Abstract
D. M. Armstrong famously claims that deterministic laws of nature are contingent relations between universals and that his account can also be straightforwardly extended to irreducibly probabilistic laws of nature. For the most part, philosophers have neglected to scrutinize Armstrong’s account of probabilistic laws. This is surprising precisely because his own claims about probabilistic laws make it unclear just what he takes them to be. We offer three interpretations of what Armstrong-style probabilistic laws are, and argue that all three interpretations are incompatible either with some feature of Armstrong’s broader metaphysics or with essential features of his account of laws (or both).
Keywords laws of nature  universals  causation  probability  D. M. Armstrong
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2017
DOI 10.1080/05568641.2017.1305914
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

References found in this work BETA

What is a Law of Nature?David M. Armstrong - 1983 - Cambridge University Press.
Laws of Nature.Fred Dretske - 1977 - Philosophy of Science 44 (2):248-268.
The Nature of Laws.Michael Tooley - 1977 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7 (4):667-98.
A World of States of Affairs.John Heil & D. M. Armstrong - 1999 - Philosophical Review 108 (1):115.
Interfering with Nomological Necessity.Markus Schrenk - 2011 - Philosophical Quarterly 61 (244):577-597.

View all 12 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Armstrong and van Fraassen on Probabilistic Laws of Nature.Duncan Maclean - 2012 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 42 (1):1-13.
Armstrong on Laws and Probabilities.Bas C. van Fraassen - 1987 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 65 (3):243 – 260.
Necessary Laws.Max Kistler - 2005 - In Jan Faye, Paul Needham, Uwe Scheffler & Max Urchs (eds.), Nature’s Principles. Springer. pp. 201-227.
Laws, the Inference Problem, and Uninstantiated Universals.Bradley Rives - 2014 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 52 (4):496-520.
What is a Law of Nature?D. M. Armstrong - 1983 - Cambridge University Press.
The Argument From Laws of Nature Reassessed.Richard Swinburne - 2004 - In M. Ruse & W. Dembski (eds.), Debating Design: From Darwin to Dna. Cambridge University Press.
Is the Humean Defeated by Induction?Benjamin T. H. Smart - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 162 (2):319-332.
Ontology and the Laws of Nature.John W. Carroll - 1987 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 65 (3):261 – 276.
Laws, Chances and Properties.D. H. Mellor - 1990 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 4 (2):159 – 170.
Can Primitive Laws Explain?Tyler Hildebrand - 2013 - Philosophers' Imprint 13:1-15.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-02-24

Total views
379 ( #17,205 of 2,330,623 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
66 ( #8,015 of 2,330,623 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes