more on this theme | more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
The straightforward dispositional essentialist account of laws by subjunctive conditionals is false because dispositions typically suffer from finks and antidotes.
Clarification
Subjunctive conditionals say 'If x were the case..'
Gist of Idea
Essentialism can't use conditionals to explain regularities, because of possible interventions
Source
Alexander Bird (Nature's Metaphysics [2007], 3.4)
Book Ref
Bird,Alexander: 'Nature's Metaphysics' [OUP 2007], p.64
A Reaction
[Finks and antidotes intervene before a disposition can take effect] This seems very persuasive to me, and shows why you can't just explain laws as counterfactual or conditional claims. Explanation demands what underlies them.