Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. What is a Law of Nature?David Malet Armstrong - 1983 - Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Sydney Shoemaker.
    First published in 1985, D. M. Armstrong's original work on what laws of nature are has continued to be influential in the areas of metaphysics and philosophy of science. Presenting a definitive attack on the sceptical Humean view, that laws are no more than a regularity of coincidence between stances of properties, Armstrong establishes his own theory and defends it concisely and systematically against objections. Presented in a fresh twenty-first-century series livery, and including a specially commissioned preface written by Marc (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   398 citations  
  • Getting Causes From Powers.Stephen Mumford & Rani Lill Anjum - 2011 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press. Edited by Rani Lill Anjum.
    Causation is everywhere in the world: it features in every science and technology. But how much do we understand it? Mumford and Anjum develop a new theory of causation based on an ontology of real powers or dispositions. They provide the first detailed outline of a thoroughly dispositional approach, and explore its surprising features.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   273 citations  
  • (1 other version)What is a Law of Nature?[author unknown] - 1985 - Philosophical Books 26 (2):120-120.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   248 citations  
  • How Not to Think of Powers.E. J. Lowe - 2011 - The Monist 94 (1):19-33.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • Causality and Necessity in Thomas Aquinas.Stephen L. Brock - 2002 - Quaestio 2 (1):217-240.
    The formulation is persuasive. Yet clearly it does assert a necessary connection between any occurrence and its antecedents. In order for a different result to occur, there has to be a corresponding difference in the antecedents. This means that from any determinate set of antecedents, a single determinate result must follow. It is a formula for determinism. Anscombe wants to caution us not to take what it says for granted.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations