Humean Laws, Explanatory Circularity, and the Aim of Scientific Explanation

Philosophical Studies:1-23 (forthcoming)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
One of the main challenges confronting Humean accounts of natural law is that Humean laws appear to be unable to play the explanatory role of laws in scientific practice. The worry is roughly that if the laws are just regularities in the particular matters of fact (as the Humean would have it), then they cannot also explain the particular matters of fact, on pain of circularity. Loewer (2012) has defended Humeanism, arguing that this worry only arises if we fail to distinguish between scientific and metaphysical explanations. However, Lange (2013, 2018) has argued that scientific and metaphysical explanations are linked by a transitivity principle, which would undercut Loewer's defense and re-ignite the circularity worry for the Humean. I argue here that the Humean has antecedent reasons to doubt that there are any systematic connections between scientific and metaphysical explanations. The reason is that the Humean should think that scientific and metaphysical explanation have disparate aims, and therefore that neither form of explanation is beholden to the other in its pronouncements about what explains what. Consequently, the Humean has every reason to doubt that Lange's transitivity principle obtains.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
DORHLE
Revision history
First archival date: 2018-07-12
Latest version: 2 (2018-07-12)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

View all 38 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2018-07-12

Total views
102 ( #22,165 of 38,850 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
55 ( #7,484 of 38,850 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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