European Journal for Philosophy of Science 9 (1):6 (2018)
AbstractIn this paper, I will defend the thesis that fundamental natural laws are distinguished from accidental empirical generalizations neither by metaphysical necessity, 147–155, 2005, 2007) nor by contingent necessitation. The only sort of modal force that distinguishes natural laws, I will argue, arises from the peculiar physical property of mutual independence of elementary interactions exemplifying the laws. Mutual independence of elementary interactions means that their existence and their nature do not depend in any way on which other interactions presently occur. It is exactly this general physical property of elementary interactions in the actual world that provides natural laws with their specific modal force and grounds the experience of nature’s ‘recalcitrance’. Thus, the modal force of natural laws is explained by contingent non-modal properties of nature. In the second part of the paper, I deal with some alleged counterexamples to my approach: constraint laws, compositional laws, symmetry principles and conservation laws. These sorts of laws turn out to be compatible with my approach: constraint laws and compositional laws do not represent the dynamics of interaction-types by themselves, but only as constitutive parts of a complete set of equations, whereas symmetry principles and conservation laws do not represent any specific dynamics, but only impose general constraints on possible interactions.
Similar books and articles
The Modal Status of Laws: In Defence of a Hybrid View.Tuomas E. Tahko - 2015 - Philosophical Quarterly 65 (260):509-528.
Laws and meta-laws of nature: Conservation laws and symmetries.Marc Lange - 2007 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 38 (3):457-481.
Are Conservation Laws Metaphysically Necessary?Johanna Wolff - 2013 - Philosophy of Science 80 (5):898-906.
Some Laws of Nature are Metaphysically Contingent.John T. Roberts - 2010 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (3):445-457.
Prawa logiki i prawa przyrody w ujęciu Johna Bigelowa i Roberta Pargettera.Marcin Tkaczyk - 2005 - Roczniki Filozoficzne 53 (1):245-260.
The Modal Status of Natural Laws.Erik Andrew Anderson - 1997 - Dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder
The dispositionalist conception of laws.Alexander Bird - 2005 - Foundations of Science 10 (4):353-70.
The Necessitarian Perspective: Laws as Natural Entailments.Martin Leckey & John Bigelow - 1995 - In F. Weinert (ed.), Laws of Nature. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 92-119.
Essentialism and the necessity of the laws of nature.Alice Drewery - 2005 - Synthese 144 (3):381-396.
A Commentary and Review of Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws: Prepared for Press From the Original.Comte Antoine Louis Claude Destutt de Tracy - 1811 - Lawbook Exchange.
Natural Laws, Universals, and the Induction Problem.Edward Slowik - 2005 - Philosophia 32 (1-4):241-251.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
The strong arm of the law: a unified account of necessary and contingent laws of nature.Salim Hirèche, Niels Linnemann, Robert Michels & Lisa Vogt - forthcoming - Synthese 199 (3):10211-10252.
Realism Without Interphenomena: Reichenbach’s Cube, Sober’s Evidential Realism, and Quantum.Florian J. Boge - 2021 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 33 (4):231-246.
References found in this work
What is a Law of Nature?D. M. Armstrong - 1983 - Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.