Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-lvtdw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T02:41:00.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Armstrong and van Fraassen on Probabilistic Laws of Nature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Duncan Maclean
Duncan Maclean*
Affiliation:
Department of Humanities, Mount Royal University, Calgary, AB T3E 6K6, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In What is a Law of Nature? (1983) David Armstrong promotes a theory of laws according to which laws of nature are contingent relations of necessitation between universals. The metaphysics Armstrong develops uses deterministic causal laws as paradigmatic cases of laws, but he thinks his metaphysics explicates other sorts of laws too, including probabilistic laws, like that of the half-life of radium being 1602 years. Bas van Fraassen (1987) gives seven arguments for why Armstrong's theory of laws is incapable of explicating probabilistic laws. The main thrust of the arguments is that Armstrong's metaphysical apparatus serves to drive up the initial probability values stated by probabilistic laws. Armstrong replies to van Fraassen in his (1988) and (1997) by appealing to limiting relative frequencies. Remarkably little has since been written about Armstrong's theory of probabilistic laws and I wish to revive interest in the debate here by assessing Armstrong's response. I will argue that his response fails because the principle of instantiation puts the limiting relative frequencies that he requires out of reach.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 1 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armstrong, D.M. 1983. What is a Law of Nature? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D.M. 1988. ‘Reply to van Fraassen,’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 66: 224–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, D.M. 1997. A World of States of Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, B. 2001. Scientific Essentialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Irzık, G. 1991. ‘Armstrong's Account of Probabilistic Laws,’ Analysis (Oct.): 214-17.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1980. ‘A Subjectivist's Guide to Objective Chance.’ Reprinted in Lewis, D.K. Philosophical Papers Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford Press 1986.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1994. ‘Humean Supervenience Debugged,’ Mind 103: 473–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrenk, M. 2011. ‘Interfering with Nomological Necessity,’ The Philosophical Quarterly 61: 577–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
B., van Fraassen 1987. ‘Armstrong on Laws and Probabilities,’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 65: 243–60. Reprinted J.W. Carroll, ed., Readings on Laws of Nature. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press 2004.Google Scholar
B., van Fraassen 1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar