Combining Philosophers
Ideas for Lynch,MP/Glasgow,JM, Alexander Bird and Stephen Mumford
expand these ideas
|
start again
|
choose
another area for these philosophers
display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers
46 ideas
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 1. Laws of Nature
9444
|
There are four candidates for the logical form of law statements [Mumford]
|
14338
|
In the 'laws' view events are basic, and properties are categorical, only existing when manifested [Mumford]
|
6762
|
Newton's laws cannot be confirmed individually, but only in combinations [Bird]
|
6763
|
Parapsychology is mere speculation, because it offers no mechanisms for its working [Bird]
|
6772
|
Existence requires laws, as inertia or gravity are needed for mass or matter [Bird]
|
9507
|
Laws are explanatory relationships of things, which supervene on their essences [Bird]
|
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 2. Types of Laws
9488
|
Laws are either disposition regularities, or relations between properties [Bird]
|
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 3. Laws and Generalities
14339
|
Without laws, how can a dispositionalist explain general behaviour within kinds? [Mumford]
|
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 4. Regularities / a. Regularity theory
14341
|
Dretske and Armstrong base laws on regularities between individual properties, not between events [Mumford]
|
6740
|
'All uranium lumps are small' is a law, but 'all gold lumps are small' is not [Bird]
|
6741
|
There can be remarkable uniformities in nature that are purely coincidental [Bird]
|
6742
|
A law might have no instances, if it was about things that only exist momentarily [Bird]
|
6743
|
If laws are just instances, the law should either have gaps, or join the instances arbitrarily [Bird]
|
6744
|
Where is the regularity in a law predicting nuclear decay? [Bird]
|
6747
|
Laws cannot explain instances if they are regularities, as something can't explain itself [Bird]
|
9441
|
Regularity laws don't explain, because they have no governing role [Mumford]
|
14340
|
It is a regularity that whenever a person sneezes, someone (somewhere) promptly coughs [Mumford]
|
9415
|
Would it count as a regularity if the only five As were also B? [Mumford]
|
9416
|
Regularities are more likely with few instances, and guaranteed with no instances! [Mumford]
|
6746
|
There may be many laws, each with only a few instances [Bird]
|
9431
|
Pure regularities are rare, usually only found in idealized conditions [Mumford]
|
9496
|
That other diamonds are hard does not explain why this one is [Bird]
|
6748
|
Similar appearance of siblings is a regularity, but shared parents is what links them [Bird]
|
6749
|
We can only infer a true regularity if something binds the instances together [Bird]
|
6803
|
If we only infer laws from regularities among observations, we can't infer unobservable entities. [Bird]
|
6801
|
Accidental regularities are not laws, and an apparent regularity may not be actual [Bird]
|
9479
|
Dispositional essentialism says laws (and laws about laws) are guaranteed regularities [Bird]
|
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 4. Regularities / b. Best system theory
9422
|
If the best system describes a nomological system, the laws are in nature, not in the description [Mumford]
|
9421
|
The best systems theory says regularities derive from laws, rather than constituting them [Mumford]
|
6745
|
A regularity is only a law if it is part of a complete system which is simple and strong [Bird]
|
6802
|
With strange enough predicates, anything could be made out to be a regularity [Bird]
|
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 5. Laws from Universals
9432
|
Laws of nature are necessary relations between universal properties, rather than about particulars [Mumford]
|
9473
|
Laws cannot offer unified explanations if they don't involve universals [Bird]
|
9484
|
If the universals for laws must be instantiated, a vanishing particular could destroy a law [Bird]
|
9433
|
If laws can be uninstantiated, this favours the view of them as connecting universals [Mumford]
|
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 8. Scientific Essentialism / b. Scientific necessity
14345
|
The necessity of an electron being an electron is conceptual, and won't ground necessary laws [Mumford]
|
9506
|
Salt necessarily dissolves in water, because of the law which makes the existence of salt possible [Bird]
|
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 8. Scientific Essentialism / c. Essence and laws
9434
|
Laws of nature are just the possession of essential properties by natural kinds [Mumford]
|
23713
|
Most laws supervene on fundamental laws, which are explained by basic powers [Bird, by Friend/Kimpton-Nye]
|
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 8. Scientific Essentialism / d. Knowing essences
14307
|
Some dispositions are so far unknown, until we learn how to manifest them [Mumford]
|
9437
|
To distinguish accidental from essential properties, we must include possible members of kinds [Mumford]
|
6789
|
If flame colour is characteristic of a metal, that is an empirical claim needing justification [Bird]
|
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 9. Counterfactual Claims
9489
|
Essentialism can't use conditionals to explain regularities, because of possible interventions [Bird]
|
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 11. Against Laws of Nature
9439
|
The Central Dilemma is how to explain an internal or external view of laws which govern [Mumford]
|
9412
|
You only need laws if you (erroneously) think the world is otherwise inert [Mumford]
|
9411
|
There are no laws of nature in Aristotle; they became standard with Descartes and Newton [Mumford]
|