The Non-Governing Conception of Laws of Nature
Open accessAbstract
Recently several thought experiments have been developed which have been alleged to refute the Ramsey-Lewis view of laws of nature. The paper aims to show that two such thought experiments fail to establish that the Ramsey-Lewis view is false, since they presuppose a conception of laws of nature that is radically at odds with the Humean conception of laws embodied by the Ramsey-Lewis view. In particular, the thought experiments presuppose that laws of nature govern the behavior of objects. The paper argues that the claim that laws govern should not be regarded as a conceptual truth, and shows how the governing conception of laws manifests itself in the thought experiments. Hence the thought experiments do not constitute genuine counter-examples to the Ramsey-Lewis view. since the Humean is free to reject the conception of laws which the thought experiments presuppose.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 15 · Cited by 314
- Authors
- Beebee, H.
- Corresponding author
- Beebee, Helen
- ORCID
- Beebee, Helen
- Venue
- Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 2000-11
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 571
- ISSN
- 0031-8205 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1970256541
- Cited by
- 314
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 62 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 14.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (publishedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (submittedVersion)
- PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
- 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 › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Keywords
- laws of nature, John Carroll, thought experiments, counterexample, conceptual truth, supervenience, metaphysics of law
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
