more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
If we have no good reason to believe that a disposition is instantiated, then the disposition should play no role in our theorizing about the world.
Gist of Idea
If a disposition is never instantiated, it shouldn't be part of our theory of nature
Source
Richard Corry (Dispositional Essentialism Grounds Laws of Nature? [2010], 3)
Book Ref
-: 'Australasian Journal of Philosophy' [-], p.6
A Reaction
It is part of our theory that a substantial lump of uranium will explode, but also that a galaxy-sized lump of uranium would explode. Surely we are committed to the latter, even though it never happens?
14346 | Dispositional essentialism says fundamental laws of nature are strict, not ceteris paribus [Corry] |
14348 | An 'antidote' allows a manifestation to begin, but then blocks it [Corry] |
14347 | A 'finkish' disposition is one that is lost immediately after the appropriate stimulus [Corry] |
14350 | If a disposition is never instantiated, it shouldn't be part of our theory of nature [Corry] |
14351 | Maybe an experiment unmasks an essential disposition, and reveals its regularities [Corry] |