Combining Philosophers

Ideas for Stephen Mumford, S.Mumford/R.Lill Anjum and Tom Clark

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

display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers

45 ideas

26. Natural Theory / B. Natural Kinds / 4. Source of Kinds
14344 Natural kinds, such as electrons, all behave the same way because we divide them by dispositions [Mumford]
26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 1. Causation
19068 Causation interests us because we want to explain change [Mumford]
14566 Causation by absence is not real causation, but part of our explanatory practices [Mumford/Anjum]
14577 Causation may not be transitive. Does a fire cause itself to be extinguished by the sprinklers? [Mumford/Anjum]
26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 4. Naturalised causation
14563 Causation is the passing around of powers [Mumford/Anjum]
26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 6. Causation as primitive
14587 We take causation to be primitive, as it is hard to see how it could be further reduced [Mumford/Anjum]
26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 8. Particular Causation / b. Causal relata
14533 Causation doesn't have two distinct relata; it is a single unfolding process [Mumford/Anjum]
14558 A collision is a process, which involves simultaneous happenings, but not instantaneous ones [Mumford/Anjum]
14559 Does causation need a third tying ingredient, or just two that meet, or might there be a single process? [Mumford/Anjum]
14565 Sugar dissolving is a process taking time, not one event and then another [Mumford/Anjum]
26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 8. Particular Causation / d. Selecting the cause
14567 Privileging one cause is just an epistemic or pragmatic matter, not an ontological one [Mumford/Anjum]
26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 9. General Causation / a. Constant conjunction
14537 Coincidence is conjunction without causation; smoking causing cancer is the reverse [Mumford/Anjum]
26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 9. General Causation / b. Nomological causation
9430 Singular causes, and identities, might be necessary without falling under a law [Mumford]
26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 9. General Causation / c. Counterfactual causation
9445 We can give up the counterfactual account if we take causal language at face value [Mumford]
14572 Is a cause because of counterfactual dependence, or is the dependence because there is a cause? [Mumford/Anjum]
14573 Occasionally a cause makes no difference (pre-emption, perhaps) so the counterfactual is false [Mumford/Anjum]
14574 Cases of preventing a prevention may give counterfactual dependence without causation [Mumford/Anjum]
26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 9. General Causation / d. Causal necessity
9443 It is only properties which are the source of necessity in the world [Mumford]
14539 Nature can be interfered with, so a cause never necessitates its effects [Mumford/Anjum]
14550 We assert causes without asserting that they necessitate their effects [Mumford/Anjum]
14546 Necessary causation should survive antecedent strengthening, but no cause can always survive that [Mumford/Anjum]
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 1. Laws of Nature
14338 In the 'laws' view events are basic, and properties are categorical, only existing when manifested [Mumford]
9444 There are four candidates for the logical form of law statements [Mumford]
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
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]
14341 Dretske and Armstrong base laws on regularities between individual properties, not between events [Mumford]
9431 Pure regularities are rare, usually only found in idealized conditions [Mumford]
9441 Regularity laws don't explain, because they have no governing role [Mumford]
9416 Regularities are more likely with few instances, and guaranteed with no instances! [Mumford]
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]
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]
9433 If laws can be uninstantiated, this favours the view of them as connecting universals [Mumford]
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 7. Strictness of Laws
14575 A 'ceteris paribus' clause implies that a conditional only has dispositional force [Mumford/Anjum]
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]
14548 There may be necessitation in the world, but causation does not supply it [Mumford/Anjum]
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]
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]
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 11. Against Laws of Nature
9411 There are no laws of nature in Aristotle; they became standard with Descartes and Newton [Mumford]
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]
14554 Laws are nothing more than descriptions of the behaviour of powers [Mumford/Anjum]
14564 If laws are equations, cause and effect must be simultaneous (or the law would be falsified)! [Mumford/Anjum]