Advertisement

Non-governing Law Solutions to Ideal Laws

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

Abstract

Chapter 3 investigates the potential for a theory of the metaphysics of ideal laws based around non-governing conceptions of lawhood. Three existing approaches are discussed: Lewis’ best system account and Schrenk’s so-called ‘better best system account’; Unterhuber’s theory of laws as generics, and the inference-ticket view, advocated by some logical empiricists such as Schlick and Toulmin. It is argued that a combination of the best system account and the inference-ticket view offers the best hope for a theory of ideal laws.

Keywords

Ideal Law Unterhuber Ceteris Paribus Laws Instance Laws Proportionality Law 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Armstrong, D. 1983. What is a law of nature?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Asher, N., and F. Pelletier. 2012. More truths about generic truth. In Genericity, ed. A. Mari, C. Beyssade, and F. Prete, 313–333. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ayer, A.J. 1956. What is a law of nature? Revue Internationale de Philosophie 10 (36): 144–165.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, G., and J. Blackburn. 2005. The pendulum: A case study in physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boss, A. 2006. Ask Astro Astronomy 30 (10): 70.Google Scholar
  6. Braithwaite, R. 1953. Scientific Explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Britannica, T.E. (17 Nov 2009). Kepler’s laws of planetary motion. Encyclopædia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/science/Keplers-laws-of-planetary-motion.
  8. Callender, C., and C. Cohen. 2010. Special sciences, conspiracy and the better best system account of laws. Erkenntnis 73: 427–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carnap, R. 1950. Logical foundations of probability. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cavedon, L., and S. Glasbey. (1994). Outline of an information-flow model of generics. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 4.Google Scholar
  11. Chierchia, G. 1995. Individual level predicates as inherent generics. In The generic book, ed. G. Carlson and F. Pelletier, 176–224. Chicago: Chicago university Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, A. 2004. Generics and mental representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 27 (5): 529–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, A. 1999. Generics, frequency adverbs and probability. Linguistics and Philosophy 22 (3): 221–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, C., and C. Callender. 2009. A better best system of lawhood. Philosophical Studies 145 (1): 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Declerk, R. 1986. The Manifold interpretations of generic sentences. Lingua 68: 149–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Declerk, R. 1991. The origins of genericity. Linguistics 29 (1): 79–102.Google Scholar
  17. Delgrande, J. 1987. A first-order conditional logic for prototypical properties. Artificial Intelligence 30: 105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Delgrande, J. 1998. On first-order conditional logics. Artificial Intelligence 105: 105–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Earman, J. 1984. Laws of Nature: The Empiricist Challenge. In D. M. Armstrong, edited by R. J Bogden, 191-223. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  20. van Fraassen, B. 1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarenden Press.Google Scholar
  21. Geurts, B. 1985. Generics. Journal of Semantics 4 (3): 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goodman, N. 1954. Fact, fiction and forecast. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Greenberg, Y. 2003. Manifestations of genericity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Hempel, C. 1965. Aspects of scientific explanation. New york: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  25. Heyer, G. 1985. Generic descriptions, default reasoning, and typicality. Theoretical Linguistics 12 (1): 33–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heyer, G. 1990. Semantics and knowledge representation in the analysis of generic descriptions. Journal of Semantics 7: 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huang, C., and G. Bakos. 2014. Testing the Titius-Bode law predictions for Kepler multi-planet systems. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 442: 674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lange, M. 1993. Natural laws and the problem of provisos. Erkenntnis 38 (2): 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lange, M. 2000. Natural laws in scientific practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lerner, A., and S. Leslie. 2016. Generics and Experimental Philosophy. In A companion to experimental philosophy, ed. W. Buckwalter and J. Sytsma, 404–416. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  31. Leslie, S. 2008. Generics: Cognition and acquisition. Philosophical Review 117 (1): 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lewis, D. 1973. Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Lewis, D. 1986. Causation. In Philosophical papers, vol. II, ed. D. Lews, 159–213. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lewis, D. 1994. Humean supervenience debugged. Mind 103 (412): 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lewis, D. 1983. New work for a theory of universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61 (4): 343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Loewer, B. 1996. Humean Supervenience. Philosophical Topics 24 (1): 101–127Google Scholar
  37. McAllister, J. 1997. Phenomena and patterns in data sets. Erkenntnis 47 (2): 217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mill, J.S. 1895. A system of logic. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Musgrave, A. 1980. Wittgensteinian instrumentalism. Theoria, XLVI 2–3: 65–105.Google Scholar
  40. Nagel, E. 1956. Logic Without metaphysics. Glencoe: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  41. Nelson, R., and M. Olsson. 1986. The pendulum—Rich physics from a simple system. American Journal of Physics 54 (2): 112–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nickel, B. 2010. Ceteris paribus laws: Generics and natural kinds. Philosopher’s Imprint 10 (6): 1–25.Google Scholar
  43. Nunberg, G., and C. Pan. 1975. Inferring quantification in generic sentences. Papers from the eleventh regional meeting of the Chicago linguistic society, 412–422. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  44. Pelletier, F., and N. Asher. 1997. Generics and defaults. In Handbook of logic and language, ed. J. van Benthem and A. Meulen, 1125–1177. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Platteau, F. 1980. Definite and indefinite generics. In The semantics of determiners, ed. J. van der Auwera, 112–123. London: Croom Hill.Google Scholar
  46. Psillos, S. 2002. Causation and explanation. Stocksfield: Acumen.Google Scholar
  47. Ramsey, F. 1927. Facts and propositions. Aristotelian Society Supplementary 7: 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
  49. Ryle, G. 1949. The concept of mind. London: Hutchinsons Universal Library.Google Scholar
  50. Schlick, M. (1931/1978). Causality in contemporary physics. In The philosophical papers of Moritz Schlick, ed. H. Hulder, and B. Schlick, vol. 1, pp. 176–209. London: Reidel.Google Scholar
  51. Schrenk, M. 2007. The metaphysics of Ceteris Paribus laws. Lancaster: Ontos-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schrenk, M. 2014. Better best systems and the issue of CP laws. Erkenntnis 79 (S10): 1787–1799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schubert, K., and F. Pelletier. 1987. Problems in representing the logical form of generics, bare plurals, and mass terms. In New directions in semantics, pp. 385–451. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  54. Sterken, R. 2015. Generics in context. Philosopher’s Imprint 15 (21): 1–30.Google Scholar
  55. ter Meulen, A. 1986. Generic information, conditional contexts and constraints. In On conditionals, ed. E. Traugott, A. ter Meulen, J. Reilly, and C. Ferguson, 123–146. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Toulmin, S. 1953. The philosophy of science. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  57. Unterhuber, M. 2014. Do Ceteris Paribus laws exist? A regularity-based best systems analysis. Erkenntnis 79: 1833–1847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wittgenstein, L. 1922. Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Woodward, J. 2014. Simplicity in the best systems account of laws of nature. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65 (1): 91–123.CrossRefGoogle 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