Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Necessitarian accounts (Armstrong, Dretske, Tooley) hold that laws involve genuine nomic necessity between universals, not mere regularities.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Nomic necessity between universals is metaphysically obscure; it's unclear how universals can necessitate rather than merely correlate.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Regularist accounts sufficiently explain laws via counterfactual truth-conditions without positing occult metaphysical necessities.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The law-accident distinction can be drawn via best-systems approaches without invoking intrinsic nomic necessity in nature itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Mere regularities cannot explain why laws support counterfactuals; only genuine necessities ground counterfactual conditionals.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If laws were just regularities, we could not distinguish laws from accidental uniformities like 'all gold spheres weigh less than 1000kg'.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Universal properties have intrinsic causal powers; necessity between universals explains why instances must instantiate lawful relations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.