Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T22:25:33.155Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lewis, Thau, and Hall on Chance and the Best-System Account of Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

John F. Halpin
John F. Halpin*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Oakland University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article considers the recent work of David Lewis, Ned Hall, and Michael Thau on chance and the best system account of law. My rejoinder suggests that, though their proposals may succeed at the stated goal of reworking the problematic relationship between chance, credence, and law, the resulting account of law suffers from an even more significant difficulty. To oversimplify a bit, I argue that their account is unable to handle the nomic necessity of laws. My criticisms suggest an alternative account of law which provides, I argue, a preferable account of nomic necessity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 65 , Issue 2 , June 1998 , pp. 349 - 360
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1998

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.)

Footnotes

†

Send requests for reprints to the author, Department of Philosophy, College of Arts and Sciences, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan 48309–4401.

‡

I wish to thank James Hawthorne and two anonymous referees for particularly acute comments on this paper. The research was supported by NSF Grant #DIR-9021631.

References

Carroll, John (1994), Laws of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Ned (1994), “Correcting the Guide to Objective Chance”, Mind 103 (412): 505–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpin, John. F. (1991), “The Miraculous Conception of Counterfactuals”, Philosophical Studies 63: 271–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpin, John. F. (1994), “Legitimizing Chance: The Best-System Approach to Probabilistic Laws in Physical Theory”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 72 (3): 317–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpin, John. F. (forthcoming), “Scientific Law: A Perspectival Account”.Google Scholar
Lewis, David (1973), Counterfactuals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David (1979), “Counterfactual Dependence and Time's Arrow”, Noûs 13: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David (1986), Philosophical Papers, v. II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David (1994), “Humean Supervenience Debugged”, Mind 103 (412): 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pargetter, R. (1984), “Laws and Modal Realism”, Philosophical Studies 46: 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thau, Michael (1994), “Undermining and Admissibility”, Mind 103 (412): 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar