more on this theme
|
more from this thinker
Single Idea 9415
[filed under theme 26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 4. Regularities / a. Regularity theory
]
Full Idea
While it might be true that for all x, if Ax then Bx, would we really want to count it as a genuine regularity in nature if only five things were A (and all five were also B)?
Gist of Idea
Would it count as a regularity if the only five As were also B?
Source
Stephen Mumford (Laws in Nature [2004], 03.3)
Book Ref
Mumford,Stephen: 'Laws in Nature' [Routledge 2006], p.39
The
24 ideas
from 'Laws in Nature'
9408
|
Science studies phenomena, but only metaphysics tells us what exists
[Mumford]
|
9411
|
There are no laws of nature in Aristotle; they became standard with Descartes and Newton
[Mumford]
|
9412
|
You only need laws if you (erroneously) think the world is otherwise inert
[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]
|
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]
|
9427
|
For Humeans the world is a world primarily of events
[Mumford]
|
9429
|
Many forms of reasoning, such as extrapolation and analogy, are useful but deductively invalid
[Mumford]
|
9430
|
Singular causes, and identities, might be necessary without falling under a law
[Mumford]
|
9431
|
Pure regularities are rare, usually only found in idealized conditions
[Mumford]
|
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]
|
9434
|
Laws of nature are just the possession of essential properties by natural kinds
[Mumford]
|
9435
|
A 'porridge' nominalist thinks we just divide reality in any way that suits us
[Mumford]
|
12248
|
How can we show that a universally possessed property is an essential property?
[Mumford]
|
9437
|
To distinguish accidental from essential properties, we must include possible members of kinds
[Mumford]
|
9439
|
The Central Dilemma is how to explain an internal or external view of laws which govern
[Mumford]
|
9441
|
Regularity laws don't explain, because they have no governing role
[Mumford]
|
9443
|
It is only properties which are the source of necessity in the world
[Mumford]
|
9444
|
There are four candidates for the logical form of law statements
[Mumford]
|
9445
|
We can give up the counterfactual account if we take causal language at face value
[Mumford]
|
9447
|
If properties are clusters of powers, this can explain why properties resemble in degrees
[Mumford]
|
9446
|
Properties are just natural clusters of powers
[Mumford]
|