More on the laws of nature

What is it to be a law?
According to an article online, there are four reasons philosophers examine what it is to be a law of nature:

First, laws at least appear to have a central role in scientific practice.

Second, laws are important to many other philosophical issues. For example, sparked by the account of counterfactuals defended by Roderick Chisholm (1946, 1955) and Nelson Goodman (1947), and also prompted by Carl Hempel and Paul Oppenheim's (1948) deductive-nomological model of explanation, philosophers have wondered what makes counterfactual and explanatory claims true, have thought that laws must play some part, and so also have wondered what distinguishes laws from nonlaws.

Third, Goodman famously suggested that there is a connection between lawhood and confirmability by an inductive inference. So, some sympathetic to Goodman's idea come to the problem of laws as a result of their interest in the problem of induction.

Fourth, philosophers love a good puzzle.

So if I have it right it seems to be a law it must infallibly and indubitably be nature... It is going to be a long and eventful day!


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dual entanglement

What is... Resonance

Quantum proof of life, the universe, everything...