Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments

Search  
 
Author Item Excerpt Meta data
Armstrong, D.M.
 
Books on Amazon
Regularities II 42 ff
ArmstrongVsHume/ArmstrongVsRegularity: 1) 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: LoN: connection of types of states - Solution: ad 1: properties instead of regularities: properties of the gold/Uranium - ad 2: universals make 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 - borderline case.
II 45
Regularity/Tooley: molecular fact: conjunction: This F is a G and this...and...- contrast: law of nature as a link between properties (universals): atomic fact: number of instances irrelevant >Armstrong: solution for non-actual situation as truth maker of counterfactual conditionals.

AR II = Disp
D. M. Armstrong

In
Dispositions, Tim Crane, London New York 1996

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


> Counter arguments against Armstrong



> Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction | > Export as BibTeX file
 
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-04-25