Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43 (1):172-181 (2012)
Mill appears to be committed to two incompatible accounts of laws. While he seems to defend a Humean account of laws similar to Ramsey’s and Lewis’s, he also appears to rely on modal notions to distinguish lawful relations from accidental regularities. This paper will show that Mill’s two accounts of laws are in fact equivalent. This equivalence results from a proper understanding of the necessity involved in laws and a proper understanding of systematization. This equivalence reveals the true source of the intimate connection between laws and systematization. Mill also provides an account of natural necessity that makes clear why experimentation is essential for gaining knowledge of laws. In contrast, Lewis’s account will be shown to have counterintuitive consequences regarding the relationship between laws and experimentation. Moreover, it will be shown that Mill’s views about inference result in a distinction between two modes of systematizing: subsumption and derivation. This distinction is overlooked in contemporary accounts of systematization, but Mill rightly notes that the metaphysical implications and epistemic role of these two modes are importantly different.
|Keywords||Experiments Laws of nature David Lewis John Stuart Mill Systematization|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
New Work for a Theory of Universals.David Lewis - 1983 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61 (December):343-377.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
The Epistemology of Hedged Laws.Robert Kowalenko - 2011 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42 (3):445-452.
The Non-Governing Conception of Laws of Nature.Helen Beebee - 2000 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (3):571-594.
"Laws of Nature" as an Indexical Term: A Reinterpretation of Lewis's Best-System Analysis.John Roberts - 1999 - Philosophy of Science 66 (3):511.
Perceiving the Present: Systematization of Illusions or Illusion of Systematization?Robert Briscoe - 2010 - Cognitive Science 34 (8):1530-1542.
Cartwright on Laws and Composition.David Spurrett - 2001 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 15 (3):253 – 268.
What is the Significance of the Intuition That Laws of Nature Govern?Susan Schneider - 2007 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (2):307 – 324.
Lewis, Thau, and Hall on Chance and the Best-System Account of Law.John F. Halpin - 1998 - Philosophy of Science 65 (2):349-360.
Arguments for Experimentation in Biology.Jane Maienschein - 1986 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:180 - 195.
A Theory for Special Science Laws.Markus Schrenk - 2006 - In H. Bohse & S. Walter (eds.), Selected Papers Contributed to the Sections of Gap.6. Mentis.
J.S. Mill's Canons of Induction: From True Causes to Provisional Ones.Steffen Ducheyne - 2008 - History and Philosophy of Logic 29 (4):361-376.
Entering New Fields: Exploratory Uses of Experimentation.Friedrich Steinle - 1997 - Philosophy of Science 64 (4):74.
Added to index2012-01-10
Total downloads29 ( #178,763 of 2,177,867 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #317,245 of 2,177,867 )
How can I increase my downloads?