Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-14T10:03:45.937Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Humeanism, Best System Laws, and Emergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Olivier Sartenaer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the current article and contrary to a widespread assumption, I argue that Humeanism and ontological emergence can peacefully coexist. Such a coexistence can be established by reviving elements of John Stuart Mill’s philosophy of science, in which an idiosyncratic account of diachronic emergence is associated with extensions of the Humean mosaic and the correlative coming into being of new best system laws, which have the peculiarity of being temporally indexed. Incidentally, this reconciliation of Humeanism and emergence allows for conceiving the autonomy of the special sciences in an interesting way, consistently with the reductionist ideal of a unified science.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 86 , Issue 4 , October 2019 , pp. 719 - 738
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

†

I would like to thank Anthony Fisher, Alexandre Guay, Vera Hoffmann-Kolss, Paul Humphreys, Andreas Hüttemann, Christian Loew, Quentin Ruyant, Christoph Schmidt-Petri, Emily Thomas, Peter Verdée, and two anonymous referees of this journal for helpful comments or discussions on earlier versions of (parts of) this article, as well as the audiences of the Köln Kolloquium Wissenschaftstheorie, the Louvain Emergence Mini-Workshop and the GAP.10 conference, where parts of this article have been presented. I also gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.

References

Armstrong, David M. 1983. What Is a Law of Nature? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Elizabeth. 2012. “Emergence and Fundamentality.” Mind 121 (484): 873–901..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beebee, Helen. 2000. “The Non-governing Conception of Laws of Nature.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (3): 571–94..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, R., and Forbes, G. A.. 2017. “The Growing-Block: Just One Thing after Another?” Philosophical Studies 174:927–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 1989. Nature’s Capacities and Their Measurement. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jonathan, and Callender, Craig. 2009. “A Better Best System Account of Lawhood.” Philosophical Studies 145 (1): 1–34..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, John. 1986. A Primer on Determinism. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, John. 2008. “Reassessing the Prospects for a Growing Block Model of the Universe.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22 (2): 135–64..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elder-Vass, D. 2010. The Causal Power of Social Structures: Emergence, Structure and Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillett, Carl. 2006. “Samuel Alexander’s Emergentism.” Synthese 153 (2): 261–96..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillett, Carl. 2016. Reduction and Emergence in Science and Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guay, Alexandre, and Sartenaer, Olivier. 2016. “A New Look at Emergence; or, When After Is Different.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 6 (2): 297–322..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guay, Alexandre, and Sartenaer, Olivier. 2018. “Emergent Quasiparticles; or, How to Get a Rich Physics from a Sober Metaphysics.” In Individuation, Process and Scientific Practices, ed. Bueno, Otavio, Fagan, Melinda, and Chen, Ruey-Lin, 214–35. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Humphreys, Paul W. 2016. Emergence: A Philosophical Account. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon. 1992. “‘Downward Causation’ in Emergentism and Nonreductive Physicalism.” In Emergence or Reduction? Essays on the Prospects of Nonreductive Physicalism, ed. Beckermann, A., Flohr, H., and Kim, J., 119–38. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon. 1999. “Making Sense of Emergence.” Philosophical Studies 95 (1–2): 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon. 2005. Physicalism, or Something Near Enough. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon. 2006. “Emergence: Core Ideas and Issues.” Synthese 151 (3): 547–59..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, Marc. 2008. “Could the Laws of Nature Change?” Philosophy of Science 75:69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1983. “New Work for a Theory of Universals.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61 (4): 343–77..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1986. Philosophical Papers. vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1994. “Reduction of Mind.” In A Companion to Philosophy of Mind, ed. Guttenplan, S., 412–31. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Loewer, Barry M. 1996. “Humean Supervenience.” Philosophical Topics 24:101–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, E. J. 2008. Personal Agency: The Metaphysics of Mind and Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macleod, C. 2017. “John Stuart Mill.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/mill/.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, Brian P. 1992. “The Rise and Fall of British Emergentism.” In Emergence or Reduction? Essays on the Prospects of Nonreductive Physicalism, ed. Beckermann, A., Flohr, H., and Kim, J., 49–93. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1884. A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive, Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation. London: Longmans, Green.Google Scholar
Millgram, E. 2009. “John Stuart Mill, Determinism, and the Problem of Induction.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (2): 183–99..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, Tim, and Wong, H. Y.. 2015. “Emergent Properties.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/properties-emergent/.Google Scholar
Peacocke, Arthur. 2007. “Emergent Realities with Causal Efficacy: Some Philosophical and Theological Applications.” In Evolution and Emergence: Systems, Organisms, Persons, ed. Murphy, N. C. and Stoeger, W. R., 267–83. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Psillos, Stathis. 2002. Causation and Explanation. Chesham: Acumen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartenaer, Olivier. 2018. “Flat Emergence.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 99:225–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt-Petri, Christoph. 2008. “Cartwright and Mill on Tendencies and Capacities.” In Nancy Cartwright’s Philosophy of Science, ed. Hartmann, S., Hoefer, C., and Bovens, L., 291–304. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schrenk, Markus. 2008. “A Theory for Special Sciences Laws.” In Selected Papers Contributed to the Sections of GAP.6, 6th International Congress of the Society for Analytical Philosophy, ed. Bohse, H., Dreimann, K., and Walter, S.. Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar
Schrenk, Markus. 2017. “The Emergence of Better Best System Laws.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 48 (3): 469–83..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephan, Achim. 1992. “Emergence: A Systematic View on Its Historical Facets.” In Emergence or Reduction? Essays on the Prospects of Nonreductive Physicalism, ed. Beckermann, A., Flohr, H., and Kim, J., 25–48. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Thomas, Emily. 2019. “The Roots of C. D. Broad’s Growing Block Theory of Time.” Mind 128 (510): 527–49..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tooley, M. 1977. “The Nature of Laws.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7 (4): 667–98..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Cleve, J. 1990. “Mind-Dust or Magic? Panpsychism versus Emergence.” Philosophical Perspectives 4:215–26.Google Scholar
Wilson, Jessica. 2015. “Metaphysical Emergence: Weak and Strong.” In Metaphysics in Contemporary Physics, ed. Bigaj, T. and Wurthrich, C., 251–306. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar