Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T22:12:53.272Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Laws of Nature” as an Indexical Term: A Reinterpretation of Lewis's Best-System Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

John Roberts
John Roberts*
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
*
†Department of Philosophy, 1001 Cathedral of Learning, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

David Lewis's best-system analysis of laws of nature is perhaps the best known sophisticated regularity theory of laws. Its strengths are widely recognized, even by some of its ablest critics. Yet it suffers from what appears to be a glaring weakness: It seems to grant an arbitrary privilege to the standards of our own scientific culture. I argue that by reformulating, or reinterpreting, Lewis's exposition of the best-system analysis, we arrive at a view that is free of this weakness. The resulting theory of laws has the surprising consequence that the term “law of nature” is indexical.

Type
Causation and Laws of Nature
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 66 , Issue S3: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers Sep., 1999 , 1999 , pp. S502 - S511
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by 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 am grateful to Joe Camp, John Earman, and John MacFarlane for helpful comments on earlier drafts.

References

Armstrong, D. M. (1983), What is a Law of Nature? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, John (1990), “The Humean Tradition”, Philosophical Review 99: 185–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, John. (1994), Laws of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David (1973), Counterfactuals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. (1980), “A Subjectivist's Guide to Objective Chance”, in Jeffrey, R. (ed.), Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, vol. II. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Reprinted with added postscripts in Lewis 1986a. Page references are to the reprinted version.)Google Scholar
Lewis, David. (1986), Philosophical Papers, vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. (1994), “Humean Supervenience Debugged”, Mind 103: 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, John (1998a), “Lewis, Carroll, and Seeing Through the Looking Glass”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76(3): 426–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, John. (1998b), “On David Lewis's Alleged Chauvinism: Aliens, Ancestors, and the Evolving Concept of a Law of Nature”, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar