Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T06:42:58.970Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Humean Laws in an unHumean World

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2017

SAMUEL KIMPTON-NYE Open the ORCID record for SAMUEL KIMPTON-NYE [Opens in a new window]
SAMUEL KIMPTON-NYE*
Affiliation:
KING'S COLLEGE [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

I argue that an unHumean ontology of irreducibly dispositional properties might be fruitfully combined with what has typically been thought of as a Humean account of laws, namely, the best-system account, made popular by David Lewis (e.g., 1983, 1986, 1994). In this paper I provide the details of what I argue is the most defensible account of Humean laws in an unHumean world. This package of views has the benefits of upholding scientific realism while doing without any suspect metaphysical entities to account for natural law. I conclude by arguing that the Humean laws-unHumean ontology package is well placed to provide an account of objective, nontrivial chances, a famous stumbling block for the Humean laws-Humean ontology package developed by Lewis.

Keywords

chancedispositionslawsmodalityontology
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , Summer 2017 , pp. 129 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armstrong, D. M. (1983) What is a Law of Nature? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beebee, H. (2000) ‘The Non-Governing Conception of Laws of Nature’. Philosophy And Phenomenological Research, 61, 571–94.Google Scholar
Bigelow, J., Collins, J., and Pargetter, R.. (1993) ‘The Big Bad Bug: What Are the Humean's Chances?’ The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 44, 443–62.Google Scholar
Bird, A. (2007) Nature's Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, S. (1990) ‘Filling in Space’. Analysis, 50, 62–65.Google Scholar
Collins, R. (2009). ‘The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-tuning of the Universe’. In Craig, W. L. and Moreland, J. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Oxford: Blackwell), 202–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demarest, H. (2017) ‘Powerful Properties, Powerless Laws’. In Jacobs, J. (ed.), Putting Powers To Work: Causal Powers In Contemporary Metaphysics (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 39–54.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. (1977) ‘Laws of Nature’. Philosophy of Science, 44, 248–68.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1983) ‘New Work for a Theory of Universals’. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61, 343–77.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1986) Philosophical Papers, Volume II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1994) ‘Humean Supervenience Debugged’. Mind, 103, 473–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mumford, S. (2004) Laws in Nature. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nozick, R. (1981) Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ramsey, F. P. (1990) Philosophical Papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tooley, M. (1977) ‘The Nature of Laws’. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 7, 667–98.Google Scholar
White, R. (2000) ‘Fine-tuning and Multiple Universes’. Noûs, 34, 260–76.Google Scholar