Combining Philosophers
Ideas for Rescher,N/Oppenheim,P, Stephen Mumford and Melissus
expand these ideas
|
start again
|
choose
another area for these philosophers
display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers
25 ideas
26. Natural Theory / B. Natural Kinds / 4. Source of Kinds
|
14344
|
Natural kinds, such as electrons, all behave the same way because we divide them by dispositions [Mumford]
|
26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 1. Causation
|
19068
|
Causation interests us because we want to explain change [Mumford]
|
26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 9. General Causation / b. Nomological causation
|
9430
|
Singular causes, and identities, might be necessary without falling under a law [Mumford]
|
26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 9. General Causation / c. Counterfactual causation
|
9445
|
We can give up the counterfactual account if we take causal language at face value [Mumford]
|
26. Natural Theory / C. Causation / 9. General Causation / d. Causal necessity
|
9443
|
It is only properties which are the source of necessity in the world [Mumford]
|
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 1. Laws of Nature
|
14338
|
In the 'laws' view events are basic, and properties are categorical, only existing when manifested [Mumford]
|
|
9444
|
There are four candidates for the logical form of law statements [Mumford]
|
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 3. Laws and Generalities
|
14339
|
Without laws, how can a dispositionalist explain general behaviour within kinds? [Mumford]
|
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 4. Regularities / a. Regularity theory
|
14341
|
Dretske and Armstrong base laws on regularities between individual properties, not between events [Mumford]
|
|
9441
|
Regularity laws don't explain, because they have no governing role [Mumford]
|
|
14340
|
It is a regularity that whenever a person sneezes, someone (somewhere) promptly coughs [Mumford]
|
|
9431
|
Pure regularities are rare, usually only found in idealized conditions [Mumford]
|
|
9415
|
Would it count as a regularity if the only five As were also B? [Mumford]
|
|
9416
|
Regularities are more likely with few instances, and guaranteed with no instances! [Mumford]
|
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 4. Regularities / b. Best system theory
|
9422
|
If the best system describes a nomological system, the laws are in nature, not in the description [Mumford]
|
|
9421
|
The best systems theory says regularities derive from laws, rather than constituting them [Mumford]
|
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 5. Laws from Universals
|
9432
|
Laws of nature are necessary relations between universal properties, rather than about particulars [Mumford]
|
|
9433
|
If laws can be uninstantiated, this favours the view of them as connecting universals [Mumford]
|
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 8. Scientific Essentialism / b. Scientific necessity
|
14345
|
The necessity of an electron being an electron is conceptual, and won't ground necessary laws [Mumford]
|
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 8. Scientific Essentialism / c. Essence and laws
|
9434
|
Laws of nature are just the possession of essential properties by natural kinds [Mumford]
|
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 8. Scientific Essentialism / d. Knowing essences
|
14307
|
Some dispositions are so far unknown, until we learn how to manifest them [Mumford]
|
|
9437
|
To distinguish accidental from essential properties, we must include possible members of kinds [Mumford]
|
26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 11. Against Laws of Nature
|
9439
|
The Central Dilemma is how to explain an internal or external view of laws which govern [Mumford]
|
|
9412
|
You only need laws if you (erroneously) think the world is otherwise inert [Mumford]
|
|
9411
|
There are no laws of nature in Aristotle; they became standard with Descartes and Newton [Mumford]
|