In Defense of Laws

Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 53 (2):413-419 (1993)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The topic of laws of nature provides a kind of Rorschach test for philosophy. Some philosophers see in laws only Humean regularities; others see a kind of physical necessity; others see a necessity closer to logical necessity; others see expressions of causal powers; others see inference tickets; still others see relations between universals; ... ; and some see only a messy inkblot. We can also perform a meta-Rorschach test on the results of the first test. When van Fraassen and I submit ourselves to this meta-test we both recoil with shock and horror. Where we differ is in drawing morals from this un- pleasant experience. For me the opprobrium falls mainly on the way philos- ophy is practiced. For van Fraassen, the disgrace also touches the practice, but for him the source is the rottenness of the concept of laws.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,597

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-03-18

Downloads
89 (#236,662)

6 months
23 (#133,289)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

A better best system account of lawhood.Jonathan Cohen & Craig Callender - 2009 - Philosophical Studies 145 (1):1 - 34.
Scientific law: A perspectival account.John F. Halpin - 2003 - Erkenntnis 58 (2):137-168.
Laws and Lawlessness.Stephen Mumford - 2005 - Synthese 144 (3):397-413.
A puzzle about laws and explanation.Siegfried Jaag - 2021 - Synthese 199 (3-4):6085-6102.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references