Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments

Author Item Excerpt Meta data
Armstrong, D.M.
Books on Amazon
Laws I 117
Sign/Laws of Nature/LoN: there is no sign for the law of gravity! Phenomena are only clues!
Sign/Ex Black Clouds: there must be a true inductive generalization, probability.
Referent: like the sign always a particulate fact. There is no sign for the general! (i.e. neither is there for the validity of the laws of nature!
III 26f
Local Laws (below cosmic range): force all theories to distinguish exactly between laws (LoN) and law statements: II 28 there may then be local laws that can never be determined as a full law statement
III 112
Uninstantiated Laws/UIL/Armstrong: I'll allow them, but as second-class cases of laws - but no uninstantiated universals
III 121
Uninstantiated Laws/Armstrong: disguised counterfactual conditionals, truth depends entirely on the actual (higher-level laws) - probability does not require the law of the excluded third, the non-true is not a fact - (VsWessel "unfact") - probability laws are only instantiated if probability is realized
III 140
Laws with universal scope: "Everything is F" - is that at all possible? - How can a U to make itself necessary?
III 141
Law/Form/Armstrong: every law must have a dyadic structure, because otherwise it could not be used for inferences - universal law: Rel between "being something in the universe" and "being F" - Universe/Armstrong: really big garden! - (>Smith's garden is idiosyncratic) - Law in Smith's Garden: relation between quasi-Universal's: "fruit in Smith's Garden" and genuine universal: "being an apple".
III 147f
Def Iron Laws (Armstrong: tell us that under certain conditions a state is necessary (or has a certain probability) - no matter what further conditions prevail - they apply, apply no matter what happens (but within certain conditions must be given for the ED).
III 148
Def Oaken Laws: under certain conditions invalid - but only real universals can be involved

AR II = Disp
D. M. Armstrong

Dispositions, Tim Crane, London New York 1996

D. Armstrong
What is a Law of Nature? Cambridge 1983

> Counter arguments against Armstrong
> Counter arguments in relation to Laws

back to list view | > Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-03-27