Necessary Laws and Chemical Kinds

Australasian Journal of Philosophy 92 (4):631-647 (2014)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Contingentism, generally contrasted with law necessitarianism, is the view that the laws of nature are contingent. It is often coupled with the claim that their contingency is knowable a priori. This paper considers Bird's (2001, 2002, 2005, 2007) arguments for the thesis that, necessarily, salt dissolves in water; and it defends his view against Beebee's (2001) and Psillos's (2002) contingentist objections. A new contingentist objection is offered and several reasons for scepticism about its success are raised. It is concluded that certain higher-level laws describing the behaviours of molecular compounds may be necessary due to their dependence on underlying physical laws, and that the modal status of laws of nature cannot be determined a priori, as the structural features of the substances and properties they govern must first be investigated.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
First archival date: 2014-08-18
Latest version: 2 (2017-07-12)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
What is a Law of Nature?Armstrong, D. M.

View all 15 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
363 ( #10,814 of 46,317 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
16 ( #39,071 of 46,317 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.