more from this thinker     |     more from this text

Single Idea 6741

[filed under theme 26. Natural Theory / D. Laws of Nature / 4. Regularities / a. Regularity theory ]

Full Idea

Bode's non-law (of 1772, about the gaps between the planets) shows that there can be remarkable uniformities in nature that are purely coincidental.

Gist of Idea

There can be remarkable uniformities in nature that are purely coincidental

Source

Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.1)

Book Ref

Bird,Alexander: 'Philosophy of Science' [UCL Press 2000], p.30

A Reaction

If Bode's law really were confirmed, even for asteroids and newly discovered planets, it might suggest that an explanation really is required, and there is some underlying cause. How likely is the coincidence? Perhaps we have no way of telling.

The 41 ideas with the same theme [laws are merely patterns in physical events]:

8340 I do not pretend to know the cause of gravity [Newton]
15861 The laws of nature are mental regularities which we learn by experience [Berkeley]
4773 Mill's regularity theory of causation is based on an effect preceded by a conjunction of causes [Mill, by Psillos]
4775 In Mill's 'Method of Agreement' cause is the common factor in a range of different cases [Mill, by Psillos]
4776 In Mill's 'Method of Difference' the cause is what stops the effect when it is removed [Mill, by Psillos]
14806 If the world is just mechanical, its whole specification has no more explanation than mere chance [Peirce]
14871 Laws of nature are merely complex networks of relations [Nietzsche]
16942 It is hard to see how regularities could be explained [Quine]
9410 Physical Laws are rhythms and patterns in nature, revealed by analysis [Feynman]
8541 Regularities theories are poor on causal connections, counterfactuals and probability [Armstrong]
8540 The introduction of sparse properties avoids the regularity theory's problem with 'grue' [Armstrong]
8582 Regularities are lawful if a second-order universal unites two first-order universals [Armstrong, by Lewis]
17671 A naive regularity view says if it never occurs then it is impossible [Armstrong]
5460 Causal relations cannot be reduced to regularities, as they could occur just once [Ellis]
23543 We identify laws with regularities because we mistakenly identify causes with their symptoms [Fine,K]
10412 If laws are mere regularities, they give no grounds for future prediction [Swoyer]
14341 Dretske and Armstrong base laws on regularities between individual properties, not between events [Mumford]
14340 It is a regularity that whenever a person sneezes, someone (somewhere) promptly coughs [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]
9431 Pure regularities are rare, usually only found in idealized conditions [Mumford]
9441 Regularity laws don't explain, because they have no governing role [Mumford]
4401 It is not a law of nature that all the coins in my pocket are euros, though it is a regularity [Psillos]
4397 Regularity doesn't seem sufficient for causation [Psillos]
4792 A Humean view of causation says it is regularities, and causal facts supervene on non-causal facts [Psillos]
4801 The regularity of a cock's crow is used to predict dawn, even though it doesn't cause it [Psillos]
16251 'Humans with prime house numbers are mortal' is not a law, because not a natural kind [Maudlin]
9479 Dispositional essentialism says laws (and laws about laws) are guaranteed regularities [Bird]
9496 That other diamonds are hard does not explain why this one is [Bird]
6746 There may be many laws, each with only a few instances [Bird]
6748 Similar appearance of siblings is a regularity, but shared parents is what links them [Bird]
6749 We can only infer a true regularity if something binds the instances together [Bird]
6740 'All uranium lumps are small' is a law, but 'all gold lumps are small' is not [Bird]
6741 There can be remarkable uniformities in nature that are purely coincidental [Bird]
6742 A law might have no instances, if it was about things that only exist momentarily [Bird]
6743 If laws are just instances, the law should either have gaps, or join the instances arbitrarily [Bird]
6744 Where is the regularity in a law predicting nuclear decay? [Bird]
6747 Laws cannot explain instances if they are regularities, as something can't explain itself [Bird]
6803 If we only infer laws from regularities among observations, we can't infer unobservable entities. [Bird]
6801 Accidental regularities are not laws, and an apparent regularity may not be actual [Bird]
14385 Strict regularities are rarely discovered in life sciences [Leuridan]