Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:30:24.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interventions and Counternomic Reasoning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Peter Tan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Counternomics—counterfactuals whose antecedents run contrary to the laws of nature—are commonplace in science but have enjoyed relatively little philosophical attention. This article discusses a puzzle about our counternomic epistemology, focusing on cases in which experimental observations are used as evidence for counternomic claims. I show that these cases resist being characterized in familiar interventionist lines, and I suggest a characterization of my own.

Type
Laws and Natural Kinds
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 84 , Issue 5 , December 2017 , pp. 956 - 969
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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

†

For comments on earlier versions of this article, I am especially thankful to Paul Humphreys and two anonymous referees. I also thank Jonathan Barker, Jim Darcy, Antonia LoLordo, Trenton Merricks, and my audience at PSA 2016.

References

Adams, Ernest W. 1993. “On the Rightness of Certain Counterfactuals.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 74 (1): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldus, R., Fennell, T., Deen, P. P., Ressouche, E., Lau, G. C., Cava, R. J., and Bramwell, S. T. 2013. “Ice Rule Correlations in Stuffed Spin Ice.” New Journal of Physics 15 (1): 013022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bramwell, S. T., Giblin, S. R., Calder, S., Aldus, R., Prabhakaran, D., and Fennell, T. 2009. “Measurement of the Charge and Current of Magnetic Monopoles in Spin Ice.” Nature 461 (7266): 956–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castelnovo, C., Moessner, R., and Sondhi, S. L. 2008. “Magnetic Monopoles in Spin Ice.” Nature 451:42–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaplin, M. 2007. “Water’s Hydrogen Bond Strength.” Condensed Matter 0706.1355.Google Scholar
Handfield, Toby. 2004. “Counterlegals and Necessary Laws.” Philosophical Quarterly 54 (216): 402–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendry, Robin Findlay, and Rowbottom, Darrell P. 2009. “Dispositional Essentialism and the Necessity of Laws.” Analysis 69 (4): 668–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansson, Lina, and Saatsi, Juha. Forthcoming. “Explanatory Abstractions.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
Lange, Marc. 2000. Natural Laws in Scientific Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lange, Marc 2004. “A Note on Scientific Essentialism, Laws of Nature, and Counterfactual Conditionals.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (2): 227–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, Marc 2016. Because without Cause. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, John T. 2008. The Law-Governed Universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinel, T., Asbury, J. B., Zheng, J., and Fayer, M. D. 2004. “Watching Hydrogen Bonds Break: A Transient Absorption Study of Water.” Journal of Physical Chemistry A 108:10957.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woodward, James. 2003. Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, James, and Hitchcock, Christopher. 2003. “Explanatory Generalizations.” Pt. 1, “A Counterfactual Account.” Noûs 37 (1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar