Two accounts of laws and time
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The relation of metaphysical explanation cannot be probabilistic.
“as Loewer (2012, p. 131) notes it looks like the relation of metaphysical explanation cannot be probabilistic.”
From Nomothetic Explanation and Humeanism about Laws of Nature (2020) · cites this paper as Loewer (2012, p. 131)
Humeans can do away with a fundamental direction of time.
“Hence, Humeans can do away with a fundamental direction of time (Loewer, 2012).”
From Governing Without A Fundamental Direction of Time: Minimal Primitivism about Laws of Nature (2022) · cites this paper as Loewer, 2012
Loewer argues that Humean laws can scientifically explain the patterns even though they do not metaphysically explain them.
“He argues that Humean laws can scientifically explain the patterns even though they do not metaphysically explain them.”
From Governing Without A Fundamental Direction of Time: Minimal Primitivism about Laws of Nature (2022) · cites this paper as Loewer (2012)
On Loewer's view, a scientific explanation just requires that the explanans be simple, unifying, and exemplifying other theoretical virtues.
“On Loewer's view, a scientific explanation just requires that the explanans be simple, unifying, and exemplifying other theoretical virtues.”
From Governing Without A Fundamental Direction of Time: Minimal Primitivism about Laws of Nature (2022) · cites this paper as Loewer (2012)
Loewer responds by distinguishing between scientific explanations and metaphysical ones.
“Loewer (2012) responds by distinguishing between scientific explanations and metaphysical ones.”
From Governing Without A Fundamental Direction of Time: Minimal Primitivism about Laws of Nature (2022) · cites this paper as Loewer (2012)
There has been more progress with respect to the explanatory circularity problem, in particular Loewer's response based on distinguishing scientific and metaphysical explanation.
“There has been more progress with respect to the explanatory circularity problem. In particular, Loewer (2012) has influentially suggested a response based on distinguishing 'scientific' and 'metaphysical' explanation.”
From Nomothetic Explanation and Humeanism about Laws of Nature (2020) · cites this paper as Loewer (2012)
Loewer's response to explanatory circularity is to accept both that the laws explain elements of the mosaic and those elements explain the laws, but to avoid circularity by claiming there are two different senses of 'explain': the mosaic metaphysically explains the laws, but the laws scientifically explain the mosaic.
“The idea is to accept both that the laws explain elements of the mosaic and those elements explain the laws but to avoid circularity by claiming that there are two different senses of 'explain' - the mosaic metaphysically explains the laws, but the laws scientifically explain the mosaic.”
From Nomothetic Explanation and Humeanism about Laws of Nature (2020) · cites this paper as Loewer (2012)
Cites
Loewer, B., & University of Arkansas Press (1996) · Philosophical Topics · doi:10.5840/philtopics199624112 · Cited by 234 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Grounding, scientific explanation, and Humean laws
Lange, M. (2013) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-012-0001-x · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Nomothetic Explanation and Humeanism about Laws of Nature
Bhogal, H. (2020) · Oxford Studies in Metaphysics Volume 12 · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192893314.003.0006 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Governing Without A Fundamental Direction of Time: Minimal Primitivism about Laws of Nature
Chen, E. K., & Goldstein, S. (2022) · Jerusalem Studies in Philosophy and History of Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-96775-8_2 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
“Loewer (2012) responds by distinguishing between scientific explanations and metaphysical ones.”
BackgroundDoes the counterfactual theory of explanation apply to non-causal explanations in metaphysics?
Reutlinger, A. (2017) · European Journal for Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1007/s13194-016-0155-z · Cited by 45 · see citing works
The Past Hypothesis and the Nature of Physical Laws
Chen, E. K. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2008.00611 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
“explanatory success of the Boltzmannian account, which is assumed in this paper. It is clear that PH is not a law of mathematics. 19This is di erent from the notion of metaphysical explanation. See (Loewer 2012), (Hicks & van Elswyk 2015). On some views, a fundamental law of nature is metaphysically explained (but…”
Background
- Authors
- Loewer, B.
- Affiliations
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Corresponding author
- Loewer, Barry
- Venue
- Philosophical Studies
- Published
- 2012-04-26
- Volume
- 160
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 115-137
- ISSN
- 0031-8116 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-0883
- OpenAlex
- W2088806326
- Cited by
- 324
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 43.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Philosophical Studies (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy, Science, and History
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Keywords
- metaphysics of law, fundamental law, chance, direction of time, arrow of time, nature of law, physics and metaphysics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
