Lexicon of Arguments

 

II (c) 42ff
ArmstrongVsHume/ArmstrongVsRegularity:
1) it is impossible to distinguish regularity from coincidence because of laws of nature (LoN): E.g. every ball of uranium is smaller than 1 km, so is every ball of gold, but the latter by coincidence.
2) Laws of nature support counterfactual conditionals - regularities do not.
3) Regularity theory turns induction into an irrational procedure.
4) Probability: Problem: every connection of F"s and G"s can exist due to a merely probable law: although the distribution is manifestation of the law of nature, it is not identical with it.
Solution: natural laws: connection of types of states.
Solution: ad 1: properties instead of regularities: properties of the gold/Uranium.
ad 2: universals make the number of instantiations irrelevant (unequal regularity).
ad 3: universals turn induction into abduction (conclusion to the best explanation).
ad 4: Relations between properties (universals) can occur in different strength, then deterministic laws of nature are a borderline case.
II (c) 45
Regularity/Tooley: regularity is molecular fact: conjunction: This F is a G and this...and...
In contrast to that: law of nature as a link between properties (universals): leeds to atomic facts: the number of instances irrelevant.
>Armstrong: this is a solution for non-actual situations as truth makers of counterfactual conditionals. >Counterfactual conditionals, >Truthmakers, >Regularity Theory, >Natural Laws, >Facts.