more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
When we come upon a counter-instance to a generalisation we can save the putative law, by treating it as potentially analytic and claiming it as a definition. ...Thus magnetism doesn't hold for phosphorus, so we say phosphorus is not a magnetic substance.
Gist of Idea
We can save laws from counter-instances by treating the latter as analytic definitions
Source
Rom Harré (Laws of Nature [1993], 3)
Book Ref
Harré,Rom: 'Laws of Nature' [Duckworth 1993], p.75
A Reaction
He notes this as being particularly true when the laws concern the dispositions of substances, rather than patterns of events.
165 | If the apparent facts strongly conflict with probability, it is in everyone's interests to suppress the facts [Plato] |
16860 | Inductive generalisation is more reliable than one of its instances; they can't all be wrong [Mill] |
15881 | We can save laws from counter-instances by treating the latter as analytic definitions [Harré] |
3862 | All theories contain anomalies, and so are falsified! [Newton-Smith] |
3863 | The anomaly of Uranus didn't destroy Newton's mechanics - it led to Neptune's discovery [Newton-Smith] |
3864 | Anomalies are judged against rival theories, and support for the current theory [Newton-Smith] |
21508 | Anomalies challenge the claim that the basic explanations are actually basic [Bonjour] |