Can bare dispositions explain categorical regularities?

Philosophical Studies 167 (3):569-584 (2014)


One of the traditional desiderata for a metaphysical theory of laws of nature is that it be able to explain natural regularities. Some philosophers have postulated governing laws to fill this explanatory role. Recently, however, many have attempted to explain natural regularities without appealing to governing laws. Suppose that some fundamental properties are bare dispositions. In virtue of their dispositional nature, these properties must be (or are likely to be) distributed in regular patterns. Thus it would appear that an ontology including bare dispositions can dispense with governing laws of nature. I believe that there is a problem with this line of reasoning. In this essay, I’ll argue that governing laws are indispensable for the explanation of a special sort of natural regularity: those holding among categorical properties (or, as I’ll call them, categorical regularities). This has the potential to be a serious objection to the denial of governing laws, since there may be good reasons to believe that observed regularities are categorical regularities


Added to PP

702 (#11,413)

6 months
14 (#56,990)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Counterfactuals.David Kellogg Lewis - 1973 - Cambridge, MA, USA: Blackwell.
How the Laws of Physics Lie.Nancy Cartwright - 1983 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Laws and Symmetry.Bas C. Van Fraassen - 1989 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
What is a Law of Nature?D. Armstrong - 1983 - Cambridge University Press.
The Metaphysics Within Physics.Tim Maudlin - 2007 - Oxford University Press.

View all 54 references / Add more references

Citations of this work

Natural Properties, Necessary Connections, and the Problem of Induction.Tyler Hildebrand - 2016 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 96:668-689.
Universals, Laws, and Governance.Matthew Tugby - 2016 - Philosophical Studies 173 (5):1147-1163.
Dispositions.Michael Fara - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Dispositions.Sungho Choi - forthcoming - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Lawful Persistence.David Builes & Trevor Teitel - forthcoming - Philosophical Perspectives.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Mechanisms, Laws, and Regularities.Holly K. Andersen - 2011 - Philosophy of Science 78 (2):325-331.
Regulatities, Laws of Nature, and the Existance of God.John Foster - 2001 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 101 (2):145–161.
Can Dispositional Essences Ground the Laws of Nature?Richard Corry - 2011 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89 (2):263 - 275.
Laws, Explanation, Governing, and Generation.Barry Ward - 2007 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (4):537 – 552.
Laws and Essences.Alexander Bird - 2005 - Ratio 18 (4):437–461.
Law.Jacqueline A. Laing - 2012 - In George Kurian (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Christian Civilisation. Blackwell.
Dispositions and Ceteris Paribus Laws.Alice Drewery - 2001 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (4):723-733.
The Bare Metaphysical Possibility of Bare Dispositions.Jennifer Mckitrick - 2003 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (2):349–369.
Laws of Nature.Norman Swartz - 2001 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.
The Essence of Dispositional Essentialism.David Yates - 2013 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 87 (1):93-128.