Combining Philosophers

Ideas for Bryan van Norden, Beth Lord and S.Mumford/R.Lill Anjum

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these philosophers

display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers


4 ideas

26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 7. Strictness of Laws
A 'ceteris paribus' clause implies that a conditional only has dispositional force [Mumford/Anjum]
     Full Idea: The most persuasive view of a 'ceteris paribus' clause is that the best non-trivially true account that we can give of their meaning is that they indicate that the conditional has dispositional force only.
     From: S.Mumford/R.Lill Anjum (Getting Causes from Powers [2011], 6.8)
     A reaction: [They cite Lipton 1999] As a general fan of dispositions (as are Mumford and Lill Anjum), this sounds right. If you then add that virtually every event in nature needs a ceteris paribus clause (see N. Cartwright), the whole thing becomes dispositional.
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 8. Scientific Essentialism / b. Scientific necessity
There may be necessitation in the world, but causation does not supply it [Mumford/Anjum]
     Full Idea: Causation is consistent with there being necessitation in the world, but we claim that causation does not itself provide that necessitation.
     From: S.Mumford/R.Lill Anjum (Getting Causes from Powers [2011], 3.8)
     A reaction: Interesting. One might distinguish between causation being necessary, and causation supplying the necessity. The obvious alternative is that essences supply the necessity.
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 11. Against Laws of Nature
Laws are nothing more than descriptions of the behaviour of powers [Mumford/Anjum]
     Full Idea: What we take to be laws are just descriptions of how the powers behave and affect each other.
     From: S.Mumford/R.Lill Anjum (Getting Causes from Powers [2011], 4.3c)
     A reaction: This is precisely my view, which I first gleaned in its boldest from from Mumford 2004. I idea that ontology does not contain any 'laws of nature' I find wonderfully liberating. Weak emergence is just epistemic.
If laws are equations, cause and effect must be simultaneous (or the law would be falsified)! [Mumford/Anjum]
     Full Idea: Physical laws are typically understood as equations, ...but then factors must vary simultaneously, since if one factor varied before the others, there would be a time when the two sides of the equation didn't equate (so Newton's 2nd Law would be false).
     From: S.Mumford/R.Lill Anjum (Getting Causes from Powers [2011], 5.5)
     A reaction: Nice. Presumably this thought seems to require action-at-a-distance, which no one could understand. Science oversimplifes the world. See Nancy Cartwright.