Erkenntnis 38 (2):233Ð248 (1993)

Authors
Marc Lange
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Abstract
Hempel and Giere contend that the existence of provisos poses grave difficulties for any regularity account of physical law. However, Hempel and Giere rely upon a mistaken conception of the way in which statements acquire their content. By correcting this mistake, I remove the problem Hempel and Giere identify but reveal a different problem that provisos pose for a regularity account — indeed, for any account of physical law according to which the state of affairs described by a law-statement presupposes a Humean regularity. These considerations suggest a normative analysis of law-statements. On this view, law-statements are not distinguished from accidental generalizations by the kind of Humean regularities they describe because a law-statement need not describe any Humean regularity. Rather, a law-statement says that in certain contexts, one ought to regard the assertion of a given type of claim, if made with justification, as a proper way to justify a claim of a certain other kind.
Keywords Philosophy of Science   Laws   Ceteris Paribus Laws
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF01128982
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: 56,999
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Counterfactuals.David Lewis - 1973 - Blackwell.
How the Laws of Physics Lie.Nancy Cartwright - 1983 - Oxford University Press.
Fact, Fiction, and Forecast.Nelson Goodman - 1955 - Harvard University Press.

View all 21 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The A Priority of Abduction.Stephen Biggs & Jessica Wilson - 2017 - Philosophical Studies 174 (3):735-758.
Ceteris Paribus Laws in Physics.Andreas Hüttemann - 2014 - Erkenntnis 79 (S10):1715-1728.
Better Best Systems and the Issue of CP-Laws.Markus Schrenk - 2014 - Erkenntnis 79 (S10):1787-1799.

View all 35 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Legal Statements and Normative Language.Duarte D'Almeida Luís - 2011 - Law and Philosophy 30 (2):167-199.
In Favor of Being Only Humean.Mariam Thalos - 1999 - Philosophical Studies 93 (3):265-298.
Laws and Criteria.Alexander Bird - 2002 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 32 (4):511-42.
Provisos: A Philosophical Problem Concerning the Inferential Function of Scientific Laws.Carl Gustav Hempel - 1988 - In A. Grünbaum & W. Salmon (eds.), The Limits of Deductivism. University of California Press, Berkeley, Ca. pp. 19Ð36.
Covering Law Explanation.Thomas Nickles - 1971 - Philosophy of Science 38 (4):542-561.
The Concept of Physical Law.Norman Swartz - 1985 - Cambridge University Press.
Nomological and Transcendental Criteria for Scientific Laws.Predrag Šustar - 2005 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 5 (3):533-544.
Hempel’s Provisos and Ceteris Paribus Clauses.Christopher H. Eliot - 2011 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 42 (2):207-218.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
167 ( #57,316 of 2,410,644 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #244,613 of 2,410,644 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes