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 The best-system account therefore fails to capture the modal force that grounds counterfactual support, which is a defining feature of lawhood.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Best-system accounts incorporate counterfactual support implicitly through simplicity and informativeness criteria built into system selection.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Modal force may not be a primitive feature of laws but rather a derived consequence of what makes something a law (systematicity and explanatory power).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
All competing accounts face equal challenges explaining modal force without invoking problematic metaphysical entities like Platonic forms.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Laws must support counterfactuals: if F were the case, then G would follow. Best-system accounts only describe actual regularities.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Necessity is central to lawhood. Laws govern what must happen, not merely what does happen in our world.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Best-system accounts reduce laws to descriptive summaries, losing the prescriptive modal force that distinguishes laws from accidents.
?
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.