Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:02:30.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laws of Nature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Fred I. Dretske
Fred I. Dretske*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is a traditional empiricist doctrine that natural laws are universal truths. In order to overcome the obvious difficulties with this equation most empiricists qualify it by proposing to equate laws with universal truths that play a certain role, or have a certain function, within the larger scientific enterprise. This view is examined in detail and rejected; it fails to account for a variety of features that laws are acknowledged to have. An alternative view is advanced in which laws are expressed by singular statements of fact describing the relationship between universal properties and magnitudes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , June 1977 , pp. 248 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

†

For their helpful comments my thanks to colleagues at Wisconsin and a number of other universities where I read earlier versions of this paper. I wish, especially, to thank Zane Parks, Robert Causey, Martin Perlmutter, Norman Gillespie, and Richard Aquilla for their critical suggestions, but they should not be blamed for the way I garbled them.

References

REFERENCES

Achinstein, P. Law and Explanation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Ayer, A. J. “What is a Law of Nature.” In [5], pages 39–54.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, R. B. Scientific Explanation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1957.Google Scholar
Brody, B. A. “Confirmation and Explanation.” Journal of Philosophy 65 (1968): 282–299, Reprinted in [5], pages 410–426.10.2307/2024079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, B. A. Readings in the Philosophy of Science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1970.Google Scholar
Bromberger, S. “Why-Questions.” In [5], pages 66–87.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. Fact, Fiction and Forecast. London: The Athlone Press, 1954.Google Scholar
Harman, G. “The Inference to the Best Explanation.” Philosophical Review 74 (1965): 88–95.10.2307/2183532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, G. “Knowledge, Inference and Explanation.” Philosophical Quarterly 18 (1968): 164–173.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G., and Oppenheim, P. “Studies in the Logic of Explanation.” In [5], pages 8–27.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. “Maximal Specificity and Lawlikeness in Probabilistic Explanations.” Philosophy of Science 35 (1968): 116–133.10.1086/288197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kneale, W. “Natural Laws and Contrary-to-Fact Conditionals.” Analysis 10 (1950): 121–125.10.1093/analys/10.6.121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kneale, W. Probability and Induction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949.Google Scholar
Mackie, J. L. “Counterfactuals and Causal Laws.” In Analytical Philosophy. (First Series). Edited by Butler, R. J. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966.Google Scholar
Molnar, G. “Kneale's Argument Revisited.” Philosophical Review 78(1969): 79–89.10.2307/2183813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, E. The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1961.10.1119/1.1937571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. “A Note on Natural Laws and So-Called 'Contrary-to-Fact Conditionals.” Mind 58 (1949): 62–66.10.1093/mind/LVIII.229.62CrossRefGoogle Scholar