Can bare dispositions explain categorical regularities?
- 243 Downloads
One of the traditional desiderata for a metaphysical theory of laws of nature is that it be able to explain natural regularities. Some philosophers have postulated governing laws to fill this explanatory role. Recently, however, many have attempted to explain natural regularities without appealing to governing laws. Suppose that some fundamental properties are bare dispositions. In virtue of their dispositional nature, these properties must be (or are likely to be) distributed in regular patterns. Thus it would appear that an ontology including bare dispositions can dispense with governing laws of nature. I believe that there is a problem with this line of reasoning. In this essay, I’ll argue that governing laws are indispensable for the explanation of a special sort of natural regularity: those holding among categorical properties (or, as I’ll call them, categorical regularities). This has the potential to be a serious objection to the denial of governing laws, since there may be good reasons to believe that observed regularities are categorical regularities.
KeywordsBare dispositions Laws of nature Natural regularities Dispositional essentialism Non-Humeanism Governing laws
I would like to thank Graeme Forbes, Michaela McSweeney, Noël Saenz, Michael Tooley, Chad Vance, and anonymous referees from Philosophical Studies and The Philosophical Quarterly for valuable comments, criticisms, and suggestions. I would also like to thank audiences at the 2011 Society for Exact Philosophy conference and the 2011 Eastern Division Meeting of the American Philosophical Association for helpful discussion.
- Armstrong, D., Martin, C. B., & Place, U. T. (1996). In T. Crane (Ed.), Dispositions: A debate. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Beebee, H. (2011). Necessary connections and the problem of induction. Nous, 45(3), 504–527.Google Scholar
- Choi, S., & Fara, M. (2012). Dispositions. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 ed.). Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
- Ellis, B. (2001). Scientific essentialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Ellis, B. (2009). The metaphysics of scientific realism. Ithaca, NY: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
- Fales, E. (1990). Causation and universals. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Foster, J. (1982–1983). Induction, explanation, and natural necessity. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 83, 87–101.Google Scholar
- Hildebrand, T. (forthcoming). Can primitive laws explain? Philosophers’ Imprint.Google Scholar
- Lange, M. (2009). Laws and lawmakers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Lowe, E. (1989). Kinds of being. New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Lowe, E. (2006). The four-category ontology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Mumford, S. (1998). Dispositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Prior, E. (1985). Dispositions. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.Google Scholar
- Schaffer, J. (2009). Causation and laws of nature. In T. Sider, J. Hawthorne, & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Contemporary debates in metaphysics (pp. 82–107). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Tooley, M. (1977). The nature of laws. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 7(4), 667–698.Google Scholar
- Tooley, M. (1987). Causation: A realist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar