Synthese 144 (3):415Ð432 (2005)
Many philosophers have believed that the laws of nature differ from the accidental truths in their invariance under counterfactual perturbations. Roughly speaking, the laws would still have held had q been the case, for any q that is consistent with the laws. (Trivially, no accident would still have held under every such counterfactual supposition.) The main problem with this slogan (even if it is true) is that it uses the laws themselves to delimit qs range. I present a means of distinguishing the laws (and their logical consequences) from the accidents, in terms of their range of invariance under counterfactual antecedents, that does not appeal to physical modalities (or any cognate notion) in delimiting the relevant range of counterfactual perturbations. I then argue that this approach explicates the sense in which the laws possess a kind of necessity.
|Keywords||Philosophy Philosophy Epistemology Logic Metaphysics Philosophy of Language|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
The Problem of Counterfactual Conditionals.Nelson Goodman - 1947 - Journal of Philosophy 44 (5):113-128.
Laws of Nature, Cosmic Coincidences and Scientific Realism.Marc Lange - 1996 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74 (4):614 – 638.
Citations of this work BETA
Natural Kindness.Matthew H. Slater - 2015 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 66 (2):375-411.
Laws and Meta-Laws of Nature: Conservation Laws and Symmetries.Marc Lange - 2007 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 38 (3):457-481.
Can Counterfactuals Really Be About Possible Worlds?Stephen Barker - 2010 - Noûs 45 (3):557-576.
From Necessary Chances to Biological Laws.C. Haufe - 2013 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (2):279-295.
Laws and Meta-Laws of Nature: Conservation Laws and Symmetries.Marc Lange - 2007 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 38 (3):457-481.
Similar books and articles
A Note on Scientific Essentialism, Laws of Nature, and Counterfactual Conditionals.Marc Lange - 2004 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (2):227 – 241.
Ceteris Paribus Laws: Classification and Deconstruction. [REVIEW]Gerhard Schurz - 2002 - Erkenntnis 57 (3):351Ð372.
Popper on Laws and Counterfactuals.Danilo Šuster - 2005 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 5 (1):109-119.
Laws and Lawmakers: Science, Metaphysics and the Laws of Nature * by Marc Lange.A. Drewery - 2011 - Analysis 71 (3):599-601.
Who's Afraid of Ceteris-Paribus Laws? Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Them. [REVIEW]Marc Lange - 2002 - Erkenntnis 57 (3):281Ð301.
Why Are the Laws of Nature so Important to Science?Marc Lange - 1999 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 59 (3):625-652.
Laws, Counterfactuals, Stability, and Degrees of Lawhood.Marc Lange - 1999 - Philosophy of Science 66 (2):243-267.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads206 ( #19,267 of 2,163,866 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #348,100 of 2,163,866 )
How can I increase my downloads?