Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:36:10.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Harré and Madden's Multifarious Account of Natural Necessity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Raymond Woller
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, I critically examine Harré and Madden's attempt, largely as it occurs in their Causal Powers, to secure for causes and laws of nature a kind of necessity which although consistent with commonsensical empiricism and anti-idealistic philosophy of science nevertheless runs counter to the humean-positivistic tradition, which denies the existence of any distinctively “natural” or causal necessity. In the course of the paper, I reveal the multifarious nature of their account and show that each part of that account, commonsensical or ontological, is inadequate. I indicate as well how the multifarious nature of the account allows and even encourages an evasive shifting about in the face of adversity, which shifting no doubt contributes to whatever illusion of adequacy is present in their treatment.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , December 1982 , pp. 616 - 632
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1982

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

Bergmann, G. (1964), Logic and Reality. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Brodbeck, M. (1968), “Explanation, Prediction, and ‘Imperfect’ Knowledge”, in Readings in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences, ed idem. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Carr, B. (1978), “[Review of] Causal Powers“, Mind 87: 305–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caws, P. (1973), “[Review of] The Principles of Scientific Thinking“, Synthese 25: 248–253.Google Scholar
Fales, E. (1979), “Relative Essentialism”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 30: 349–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, R. (1979), “[Review of] Causal Powers“, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 57: 114–116.Google Scholar
Frankel, H. (1976), “Harré on Causation”, Philosophy of Science 43: 560–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harré, R. (1964), Matter and Method. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harré, R. (1970), The Principles of Scientific Thinking. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harré, R. (1973), “Surrogates for Necessity”, Mind 82: 358–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harré, R. (1975), “Metaphysics and Science”, Philosophica 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harré, R. (1977), “Science as Representation: A Reply to Mr. Mackinnon”, Philosophy of Science 44: 146–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harré, R. and Madden, E. H. (1973), “Natural Powers and Powerful Natures”, Philosophy 48: 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harré, R. and Madden, E. H. (1975a), Causal Powers. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1955), An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merril.Google Scholar
Locke, J. (1959), An Easy Concerning Human Understanding. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Madden, E.H. (1969), “A Third View of Causality”, The Review of Metaphysics 23: 67–84.Google Scholar
Madden, E.H. (1971), “Hume and the Fiery Furnace”, Philosophy of Science 38: 64–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madden, E.H. and Harré, R. (1973), “In Defence of Natural Agents”, Philosophical Quarterly 23: 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinn, C. (1980), “Philosophical Materialism”, Synthese 44: 173–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullin, E. (1978), “Structural Explanation”, American Philosophical Quarterly 15: 139–147.Google Scholar
Miller, D. (1972), “Back to Aristotle?”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 23: 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papineau, D. (1977), “[Review of] Causal Powers“, Philosophy 52: 113–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. (1965), Conjectures and Refutations. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Smith, J. W. (1982), “Reply to Frankel's Criticism of Harré's Theory”, Philosophy of Science 49: 282–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veatch, H. B. (1976), “[Review of] Causal Powers“, New Scholasticism 50: 537–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, W.A. (1976), “Six Studies of Causality on the Bicentenary of David Hume”, Thomist 40: 684–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar