Governing Law Solutions to Ideal Laws

  • Billy WheelerEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Philosophy book series (BRIEFSPHILOSOPH)


Chapter 2 investigates the potential for a theory of the metaphysics of ideal laws based around governing conceptions of lawhood. Three existing approaches are discussed: Armstrong’ theory of nomic necessitation, Cartwright’s capacity conception of laws, and Ellis’ theory of laws as essences of natural kinds. It is argued that none of these conceptions can provide a suitable explanation of the existence of ideal laws.


  1. Armstrong, D. 1983. What is a law of nature? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beebee, H. 2000. The non-governing conception of laws of nature. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research LXI (3): 571–594.Google Scholar
  3. Bigelow, J. 1999. Scientific essentialism. In Causation and the laws of nature, ed. H. Sankey, 45–59. Dodrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  4. Bird, A. 1998. Dispositions and antidotes. The Philosophical Quarterly 48: 227–234.Google Scholar
  5. Bird, A. 2005a. The dispositionalist conception of laws. Foundations of Science 10: 353–370.Google Scholar
  6. Bird, A. 2005b. Laws and essences. Ratio 18: 437–461.Google Scholar
  7. Cartwright. 1999. The dappled world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cartwright, N. 1983. How the laws of physics lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cartwright, N. 2002. In favour of laws that are not Ceteris Paribus after all. Erkenntnis 57: 425–439.Google Scholar
  10. Cartwright, N. 1989. Nature’s capacities and their measurement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dretske, F. 1977. Laws of nature. Philosophy of Science 44: 248–268.Google Scholar
  12. Drewery, A. 2001. Dispositions and Ceteris Paribus laws. British Journal for the Philosophy 52: 723–733.Google Scholar
  13. Ellis, B. 2001. Scientific essentialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ellis, B. 2002. The philosophy of nature: A guide to the new essentialism. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ellis, B., and C. Lierse. 1994. Dispositional essentialism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 72 (1): 27–45.Google Scholar
  16. Forge, J. 1986. David Armstrong on functional laws. Philosophy of Science (53) 4: 584–587.Google Scholar
  17. Gnassounou, B, and M Kistler. 2007. Dispositions and causal powers. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  18. Goodman, N. 1954. Fact, fiction and forecast. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Handfield, T. 2001. Dispositional essentialism and the possibility of a law-abiding miracle. The Philosophical Quarterly 51 (205): 484–494.Google Scholar
  20. Harre, R., and E.H. Madden. 1975. Causal powers: A theory of natural necessity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Hüttemann, A. 2007. Causation, laws and dispositions. In Dispositions and causal powers, ed. B. Gnassounou, and M. Kistler, 207–219. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  22. Hüttemann, A. 2014. Ceteris Paribus laws in physics. Erkenntnis 79: 1715–1728.Google Scholar
  23. Hüttemann, A. 1998. Laws and dispositions. Philosophy of Science 65 (1): 121–135.Google Scholar
  24. Kripke, S. 1980. Naming and necessity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lipton, P. 1999. All else being equal. Philosophy 74 (2): 155–168.Google Scholar
  26. Martin, C.B. 1994. Dispositions and conditionals. The Philosophical Quarterly 44: 1–8.Google Scholar
  27. Psillos, S. 2008. Cartwright’s realist toil: From entities to capacities. In Nancy Cartwright’s philosophy of science, ed. S. Hartmann, and C. Hoefer, 167–194. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Quine, W.V.O. 1960. Word and object. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Rosen, G. 2017. Abstract Objects. Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy. Spring.
  30. Ryle, G. 1949. The concept of mind. London: Hutchinsons Universal Library.Google Scholar
  31. Schrenk, M. 2007. The metaphysics of Ceteris Paribus laws. Lancaster: Ontos-Verlag.Google Scholar
  32. Schurz, G. 2002. Ceteris Paribus laws: Classification and deconstruction. Erkenntnis 57 (3): 351–372.Google Scholar
  33. Smith, A. 1977. Dispositional properties. Mind 86: 439–445.Google Scholar
  34. Tooley, M. 1977. The nature of laws. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 77 (4): 667–698.Google Scholar
  35. Vallentyne, P. 1988. Explicating lawhood. Philosophy of Science 55 (4): 598–613.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophySun Yat-Sen UniversityZhuhaiChina

Personalised recommendations