Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:05:07.731Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laws of Nature and Individuals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2020

Ranpal Dosanjh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Individuals (like the Earth or a biological species) are often the subject of generalizations of various special sciences. The traditional argument is that there can't be laws about such individuals, since the law statements would have to contain local predicates (refer essentially to a particular time, place, object, or event). Marc Lange argues that, despite local predication, there can be laws about individuals. This paper argues, on the contrary, that there can be no such laws – not because of local predication, but because the laws would discriminate among material systems on non-qualitative grounds. I rely on the principle that qualitatively identical systems under one set of laws must evolve in the same manner. If there could be laws about individuals, nothing would guarantee that the principle is satisfied. My argument is illustrated by a thought experiment inspired by Strawson's massive reduplication argument.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy , Volume 96 , Issue 1 , January 2021 , pp. 49 - 72
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy, 2020

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

Ayer, A. J., ‘What is a law of nature?’, The Concept of a Person (London: Macmillan, 1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beebee, Helen, ‘The non-governing conception of laws of nature’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 61 (2000), 571–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, Alexander, ‘The dispositionalist conception of laws’, Foundations of Science, 10 (2005), 353–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, Alexander, ‘Looking for laws’, Metascience, 15 (2006), 441–54.Google Scholar
Black, Max, ‘The identity of indiscernibles’, Mind, 61 (1952), 153–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burks, Arthur W., ‘A theory of proper names’, Philosophical Studies, 2 (1951), 36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E., ‘Squaring the circle: Natural kinds with historical essences’, in Wilson, R. (ed.), Species (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1999).Google ScholarPubMed
Handfield, Toby, ‘Counterlegals and necessary laws’, Philosophical Quarterly, 54 (2004), 402–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. and Oppenheim, Paul, ‘Studies in the logic of explanation’, Philosophy of Science, 15 (1948), 135–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ihde, Aaron J., The development of modern chemistry (New York: Dover, 1984).Google Scholar
Kimpton-Nye, Samuel, ‘Necessary laws and the problem of counterlegals’, Philosophy of Science, 87 (2020), 518–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, Marc, ‘Are there natural laws concerning particular biological species?’, Journal of Philosophy, 92 (1995), 430–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, Marc, Natural Laws in Scientific Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
Lange, Marc, ‘Must the fundamental laws of physics be complete?’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 78 (2009), 312–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David, Counterfactuals (Oxford: Blackwell, 1973).Google Scholar
Lewis, David, On the Plurality of Worlds (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986a).Google Scholar
Lewis, David, ‘A subjectivist's guide to objective chance’, Philosophical Papers, volume II (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986b).Google Scholar
Martin, C. B. and Heil, John, ‘Rules and powers’, Noûs, 32 (1998), 283–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Robert M., ‘How scientific laws can be about individuals’, Dialogue, 25 (1986), 251–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maudlin, Tim, ‘A modest proposal concerning laws, counterfactuals, and explanations’, The Metaphysics Within Physics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, John T., The Law-Governed Universe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Susan, ‘What is the significance of the intuition that laws of nature govern?’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 85 (2007), 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smart, J. J. C., Philosophy and Scientific Realism (New York: Routledge, 1963).Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F., Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics (London: Methuen & Co., 1959).Google Scholar
Tooley, Michael, ‘The nature of laws’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 7 (1977), 667–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tugby, Matthew, ‘Rescuing dispositional essentialism from the ultimate problem: Reply to Barker and Smart’, Analysis, 72 (2012), 723–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, N. L., ‘The identity of indiscernibles and the symmetrical universe’, Mind, 62 (1953), 506–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar